Johns Hopkins: More gun control needed to prevent second civil war

[Dagosa]

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.

Sure..
“The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.1”
You do know what purpose means along with “ well regulated”, The entire purposes is to provide for a well regulated militia bubba.

 

[2aguy]

Sure..
“The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the prefatory clause announces the Amendment’s purpose.1”
You do know what purpose means along with “ well regulated”, The entire purposes is to provide for a well regulated militia bubba.

You guys are full of such bullshit……the Right of the people, not militias, you dumb ass….,

 

[2aguy]

It was mentioned..And you were wrong…
“The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the…
The first was the purpose ....
A well regulated militia is the purpose of the 2@.
Nothing could be more plain.

The first clause is the dependent clause…..has no control over the independent clause. And the independent clause states the Right belongs to the people, and does not give it to the militia…

 

[Batcat]

He understand what he needs to do. Rescind the 2nd. Good luck with that.

If the government does try to confiscate civilian owned firearms, it is possible that a new revolution will start.

Gun control efforts ignited the first American Revolution and it is possible that history will repeat itself.

The last thing I hope to see is our nation breaking apart but we do seem to be approaching that point. If we divide it will make it much easer for China to rule the world.

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution | Tenth Amendment Center

Had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

 

[para bellum]

It was mentioned..And you were wrong…
“The majority analyzed the Second Amendment’s two clauses and concluded that the…
The first was the purpose ....
A well regulated militia is the purpose of the 2@.
Nothing could be more plain.

Now, you are intentionally omitting. The militia purpose is not the exclusive purpose, it is only one component.

Again, the Cornell page describes the ruling:

"Coming back to the Court’s initial declaration that the two clauses must “fit” together, the majority concluded that the two clauses fit “perfectly” in light of the historical context showing that “tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men . . . by taking away the people’s arms.” 22 Thus, the Court announced the reason for the Second Amendment’s codification was “to prevent elimination of the militia,” which “might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” 23 The Court clarified that the reason for codification does not define the entire scope of the right the Second Amendment guarantees.24 This is so because, the Court explained, the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right that included using firearms for self-defense and hunting, and thus the pre-existing right also informs the meaning of the Second Amendment.25"

 

[GLASNOST]

The medical community and everyone in it needs to shut the fuck up on guns, politics, and law.

Weapons manufacturers, the NRA, and gun owners need to shut the fuck up on politics, law, and the effects of unemployment rates on crime.

 

[Dagosa]

Now, you are intentionally omitting. The militia purpose is not the exclusive purpose, it is only one component.

Ha ha
Now you’re changing the bar....hilarious. It’s still the PRIMARY purpose. That it’s additional purpose is only recent for personal self defense, is HIGHLY REGULATED.
What part of this don’t you get ? Name one municipality, country or state that has specifically regulated AR15 rifles for personal use has been over turned. None.

The Heller decision is the law if the land....guess what, Heller still has to REGISTER his hand gun and be licensed to even possess it. Everything is as I’ve always said. The main purpose of the 2@ is for well regulated militia and everything else can be subject to regulation. It’s potentially on the books and ready to pass...with no SC interference.

Sounds like a good start for everyone and every firearm nationally. Registration and licensing of all firearms is the way.....

 

[Dagosa]

Now, you are intentionally omitting. The militia purpose is not the exclusive purpose, it is only one component.

Again, the Cornell page describes the ruling:

"Coming back to the Court’s initial declaration that the two clauses must “fit” together, the majority concluded that the two clauses fit “perfectly” in light of the historical context showing that “tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men . . . by taking away the people’s arms.” 22 Thus, the Court announced the reason for the Second Amendment’s codification was “to prevent elimination of the militia,” which “might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” 23 The Court clarified that the reason for codification does not define the entire scope of the right the Second Amendment guarantees.24 This is so because, the Court explained, the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right that included using firearms for self-defense and hunting, and thus the pre-existing right also informs the meaning of the Second Amendment.25"

Typical...you bogusly select little phrases and words to twist the final outcome. Heller must register his firearm and be a licensed owner. It’s on the books.

 

[Dagosa]

If the government does try to confiscate civilian owned firearms, it is possible that a new revolution will start.

Thats funny. The govt controls all the hospitals. You‘d lose your healthcare and insurance bubba if you were part of a revolt.
You're ridiculous. Countries that do this have buy backs and incentives then, they would just give out rewards for turning your ass in for a heavy fine. Next step, a lien on your property and attach your wages. No one is coming to your house to take your gun….they would fking take your car first while you’re working or sleeping….then fine your ass to get your gun…..
When they are through with you, you’d beg them to take your little pistol.

Gun control efforts ignited the first American Revolution and it is possible that history will repeat itself.

In your dreams…

The last thing I hope to see is our nation breaking apart but we do seem to be approaching that point. If we divide it will make it much easer for China to rule the world.

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution | Tenth Amendment Center

Had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

 

[para bellum]

Now you’re changing the bar....hilarious. It’s still the PRIMARY purpose. That it’s additional purpose is only recent for personal self defense, is HIGHLY REGULATED.

Wrong again, Heller asserts, and McDonald affirms, "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

What part of this don’t you get ? Name one municipality, country or state that has specifically regulated AR15 rifles for personal use has been over turned. None.

California's ban was struck down (twice) in Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit stayed the decision awaiting further review. (it is NOT overturned)

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207329132/a-federal-judge-rules-again-that-californias-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstituti

All the recent so-called "assault weapons" bans were working their way through the courts, but have been sent back down to be re-evaluated in light of Bruen.

So it's only a matter of time- they will all go down like dominoes.

 

[Dagosa]

Wrong again, Heller asserts, and McDonald affirms, "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

it doesn’t matter what you say. Heller to gain relief still has to register the firearm and be a licensed gun owner.

California's ban was struck down (twice) in Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit stayed the decision awaiting further review. (it is NOT overturned)

Only becuae it was an outright ban. We don’t ban firearms, we regulate them. No state that has regulated and not banned any firearm has been overturned. The Supreme Court has been consistent. Have there been a provision for license for a firearm that could hold a magazine with greater than 10:rounds, it would not have been overturned. Why ? Because no other has been over turned . I am absolutlty right and you are just grabbing straws.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207329132/a-federal-judge-rules-again-that-californias-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstituti

All the recent so-called "assault weapons" bans were working their way through the courts, but have been sent back down to be re-evaluated in light of Bruen.

And as long as they were written with licensing required, JUST LIKE HELLER, they will not be overturned.

So it's only a matter of time- they will all go down like dominoes.

Nope…they were banned without provisions to license regulations.

 

[para bellum]

Only becuae it was an outright ban. We don’t ban firearms, we regulate them. No state that has regulated and not banned any firearm has been overturned

Your posts are increasingly inane. Heller was all about D.C's licensing and storage laws, which the SCOTUS said constituted an outright ban, and declared them unconstitutional. Same in McDonald, Bruen, etc. Those cases were all challenges to laws that restricted licensing, storing, registering, and/or carrying arms.

There are no "AR15 specific regulations"- that question is a strawman. Legislatures write laws that try to ban entire classes of guns, not just particular models. All of the laws passed that apply to AR15's apply to a long list of guns besides the AR.

Your arguments are the same ones we have been hearing from gun grabbers for decades. Those arguments have all been addressed and dismissed in Heller, McDonald, Bruen, etc.

FYI- technically speaking, the difference between a law and a regulation is who enacted it. If a legislature enacts it and a Governor signs it, it's a law. If a Gov't agency enacts it by decree, it's a regulation.

In practice, there is no meaningful distinction, and regulations have the force of law. Both types- laws and regulations- have been challenged (and defeated) in the courts.

 

[Dagosa]

Your posts are increasingly inane. Heller was all about D.C's licensing and storage laws, which the SCOTUS said constituted an outright ban, and declared them unconstitutional. Same in McDonald, Bruen, etc. Those cases were all challenges to laws that restricted licensing, storing, registering, and/or carrying arms.

There are no "AR15 specific regulations"- that question is a strawman. Legislatures write laws that try to ban entire classes of guns, not just particular models. All of the laws passed that apply to AR15's apply to a long list of guns besides the AR.

Your arguments are the same ones we have been hearing from gun grabbers for decades. Those arguments have all been addressed and dismissed in Heller, McDonald, Bruen, etc.

FYI- technically speaking, the difference between a law and a regulation is who enacted it. If a legislature enacts it and a Governor signs it, it's a law. If a Gov't agency enacts it by decree, it's a regulation.

In practice, there is no meaningful distinction, and regulations have the force of law. Both types- laws and regulations- have been challenged (and defeated) in the courts.……

…..

 

[Dagosa]

Your posts are increasingly inane. Heller was all about D.C's licensing and storage laws, which the SCOTUS said constituted an outright ban, and declared them unconstitutional. Same in McDonald, Bruen, etc. Those cases were all challenges to laws that restricted licensing, storing, registering, and/or carrying arms.

There are no "AR15 specific regulations"- that question is a strawman. Legislatures write laws that try to ban entire classes of guns, not just particular models. All of the laws passed that apply to AR15's apply to a long list of guns besides the AR.

Your arguments are the same ones we have been hearing from gun grabbers for decades. Those arguments have all been addressed and dismissed in Heller, McDonald, Bruen, etc.

FYI- technically speaking, the difference between a law and a regulation is who enacted it. If a legislature enacts it and a Governor signs it, it's a law. If a Gov't agency enacts it by decree, it's a regulation.

In practice, there is no meaningful distinction, and regulations have the force of law. Both types- laws and regulations- have been challenged (and defeated) in the courts.

Technically speaking…Heller got relief ONLY by, registering his handgun he carried or stored and being licensed himself. No one in DC can carry Handgun with out being licensed and registering the handgun and no,one can be allowed to keep a handgun in his home without registering the handgun and being licensed to avoid the necessity of storing it.

You may not know why they have this storage requirement….just ask.

 

[petro]

I don't know any gun owners that own a single gun...

I own a few, and all of them have shot less people than Alec Baldwin's "prop" gun.

 

[para bellum]

Technically speaking…Heller got relief ONLY by, registering his handgun he carried or stored and being licensed himself.

Lol. Now you speak as if D.C. won that fight, like Heller was just refusing to get a license or something. That's not how it was.

D.C. was refusing to register new guns and issue licenses. Dick Heller sued them.

He was not challenging licensing laws, he was forcing D.C. to issue licenses and register new guns. He also got the law struck that required people to store their guns disassembled or inoperable, or not readily accessible.

 

[Rigby5]

Ha ha
Now you’re changing the bar....hilarious. It’s still the PRIMARY purpose. That it’s additional purpose is only recent for personal self defense, is HIGHLY REGULATED.
What part of this don’t you get ? Name one municipality, country or state that has specifically regulated AR15 rifles for personal use has been over turned. None.

The Heller decision is the law if the land....guess what, Heller still has to REGISTER his hand gun and be licensed to even possess it. Everything is as I’ve always said. The main purpose of the 2@ is for well regulated militia and everything else can be subject to regulation. It’s potentially on the books and ready to pass...with no SC interference.

Sounds like a good start for everyone and every firearm nationally. Registration and licensing of all firearms is the way.....

First of all, very few states have any licensing or registration.
Second is that the "well regulated militia" is everyone according to the state constitutions.
Third is that the meaning of "well regulated" is to be well practiced and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted" and that is what you are trying to interpret as meaning.
Forth is that anyone intent on committing a crime that is more serious than the gun violation penalty is not at all going to be deterred by any gun law you pass.

 

[Dagosa]

First of all, very few states have any licensing or registration

That is a state decision. There certainly isn’t anything in Heller that prevents it. DC requires both registration and licensing for a handgun, not just for carry, but for home defense. It’s the law of the land NOW.

Second is that the "well regulated militia" is everyone according to the state constitutions.

All you need to do is read the mission statement of the national guard. It fulfills the requirement of a well regulated militia.

Third is that the meaning of "well regulated" is to be well practiced and proficient.
It does not mean "restricted" and that is what you are trying to interpret as meaning.

Anything beyond a well regulated militia, is nothing more than the privy of states that allow bubbas to get together in week ends and play soldier. None of these entities are protected under the law, liability wise, to participate in any protection role from either outside or within.

Forth is that anyone intent on committing a crime that is more serious than the gun violation penalty is not at all going to be deterred by any gun law you pass.

Strong Firearm laws put the legal owner more in jeopardy in keeping their firearms from being used in crimes. It works with “ machine guns” it works in every developed country in the world that has more strict gun control then us.
States and countries with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. Licenses all gun owners and register all firearms….it’s legal, it woris.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your posts are increasingly inane.

He's a troll, so....

 

[Dagosa]

He's a troll, so....

Dufus.