Matt Gaetz says gun are not hunting , their to take down the government.

[meaner gene]

California penal code 415 PC says that if you protested in front of city hall, you would be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace.

If you were part of a group, you could not be.

Thus that right is a group right, not an individual one.

So, what number is the cut off?

1 person=gets arrested
2 people=gets arrested
3 people=gets arrested
etc

How many individuals have to show up, before they are afforded the right to peacefully protest?

A group is more than 1 individual.

It takes 2 to tango.

 

[meaner gene]

.

Sweetie ... I don't give a **** if you are a Rhodes Scholar ...
That's not going to change what the Constitution says or means.

.​

Then give a legal argument how a single person can "peacefully assemble"

Because California penal code 415 PC and it's ensuing case law clearly says that the 1st amendment right to stand and shout in protest is not an individual right.

 

[Canon Shooter]

.​

There is no individual right in the 2nd, no matter what Scalia twisted into Heller V DC. It's clear from the text " the right of the people" is used, not an individual reference.

Of course it is.

With regards to 2nd Amendment, "the people" is comprised of individuals. Were it not intended that way, the amendment wouldn't exist, as "the people" would be reliant on the government for the arms "the people" would need to protect themselves from the very government they relied on.

Libs have tried twisting this around, as nauseum, for generations. They always fall flat on their fat ******* faces...

 

[Lesh]

You don't know about Hisotry, do you? We have many quotes from our Founding Fathers that said the right is to keep the government from being trannical.

What the Constitution says it what is at issue. And the Constitution states that the Militai be used to put DOWN insurrection. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Read the whole thing. Stop trying to pretend that the Militia clause is not there.

You don't have to belong to a militia to own a firearm.

True but the Constitution only protects gun ownership in THAT regard

 

[Auld Phart]

You don't know about Hisotry, do you? We have many quotes from our Founding Fathers that said the right is to keep the government from being trannical.

What the Constitution says it what is at issue. And the Constitution states that the Militai be used to put DOWN insurrection. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Read the whole thing. Stop trying to pretend that the Militia clause is not there.

You don't have to belong to a militia to own a firearm.

True but the Constitution only protects gun ownership in THAT regard

Read the whole thing. Stop trying to pretend that the Militia clause is not there.

It is there.

but the militia is NOT who the Right was given to.

 

[meaner gene]

Prior to Heller the prevailing consensus among American jurists was that the Second Amendment right was a collective right, concerning the role of state militia as the first line of defense from foreign invasion, that private citizens needed to be armed to participate in a militia, being the sole purpose of armed private citizens – in that those not serving in the capacity of a militia could be lawfully and constitutionally prohibited from possessing firearms.

I see your desire to modernize the constitutional view of the 2nd amendment to fit what the country currently looks like. But as you noted the previous interpretation was what was both the case law, and the reality in the country. It's what allowed laws preventing blacks, slaves, and indians from lawfully acquiring, or owning firearms.

 

[Flash]

You don't know about Hisotry, do you? We have many quotes from our Founding Fathers that said the right is to keep the government from being trannical.

What the Constitution says it what is at issue. And the Constitution states that the Militai be used to put DOWN insurrection. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Read the whole thing. Stop trying to pretend that the Militia clause is not there.

You don't have to belong to a militia to own a firearm.

True but the Constitution only protects gun ownership in THAT regard

You dumb shit. Heller established the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right. Go read it. I shit you not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where does the second amendment specify guns?

In its case law – which conservatives hate, oppose, and ignore.

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,, only amendments change the constitution,,

but you knew that,,

so that would make your premise a lie,,

Conservatives have come to loathe Heller/McDonald and its progeny.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the right consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that designating prohibited persons such as felons and the mentally ill is perfectly Constitutional.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that firearms may be prohibited in certain venues such as police stations and schools.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that prohibiting the carrying of concealed arms is perfectly Constitutional.

And conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the regulation of the commercial sales of firearms such as background checks and waiting periods is perfectly Constitutional.

The right’s unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law is consistent with their overall contempt for the Constitution itself.

 

[Lesh]

You dumb shit. Heller established the right to keep and bear arms as being an individual right.

Yup. Scalia knowing that the Militia Clause was a weak argument had to decouple that from the 2A. It was blatant Judicial Activism by a hypocrite who claimed to be an "originalist"

 

[progressive hunter]

Where does the second amendment specify guns?

In its case law – which conservatives hate, oppose, and ignore.

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,, only amendments change the constitution,,

but you knew that,,

so that would make your premise a lie,,

Conservatives have come to loathe Heller/McDonald and its progeny.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the right consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that designating prohibited persons such as felons and the mentally ill is perfectly Constitutional.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that firearms may be prohibited in certain venues such as police stations and schools.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that prohibiting the carrying of concealed arms is perfectly Constitutional.

And conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the regulation of the commercial sales of firearms such as background checks and waiting periods is perfectly Constitutional.

The right’s unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law is consistent with their overall contempt for the Constitution itself.

wouldnt know,, I'm not a conservative,, but true constitution loving americans sure do,,,

 

[meaner gene]

But the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what the Constitution means; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment, an Amendment that codifies an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

Correct, but they also have a certain duty not to upset the applecart, unless it's important enough to do so. The problem the supreme court has is to weigh stare decicis against a changing reality. They have done this by siteing things like the prevalence of "gay marriage" laws in the states, in order to make it a constitutional right by applying privileges and immunitys, and equal protection.

 

[Lesh]

but the militia is NOT who the Right was given to.

It is the reason that right exists. And Constitutionally it exists IN that context

 

[meaner gene]

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

You're kind of nitpicking here on the difference between a musket and a fowler.

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment you have to know the difference. Did it protect people owning rifles, or did it protect people owning muskets?

Owning rifles is an individual right, while owning muskets is a collective one.

 

[Auld Phart]

Once again for the man in the clown car. They did not own private muskets (this is a 99th percentile statement) They owned rifles, pistol, etc, but muskets were not a practical firearm for any other purpose but waging war, or suppressing insurrecton.

You're kind of nitpicking here on the difference between a musket and a fowler.

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment you have to know the difference. Did it protect people owning rifles, or did it protect people owning muskets?

Owning rifles is an individual right, while owning muskets is a collective one.

Did it protect people owning rifles, or did it protect people owning muskets?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

from the way it is worded, it protects both.

 

[Lesh]

The irony is that the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy demonstrates the fact that a coup attempt can be launched absent firearms and that other types of weapons are just as useful, if not more so.

Exactly. The Insurrectionists knew that had the used guns they would have been met with overpowering force and would have "crossed the Rubicon" of sorts.

They considered it and discarded it because they thought they had a better chance of success without guns.
The Oath Keepers etc. are on record communicating that before the Insurrection

 

[meaner gene]

With regards to 2nd Amendment, "the people" is comprised of individuals. Were it not intended that way, the amendment wouldn't exist, as "the people" would be reliant on the government for the arms "the people" would need to protect themselves from the very government they relied on.

You conflate who "the government" is in the second amendment. The government arming it's citizenry is the state and local government, hence the phrase "well regulated militia" preceding the right.

And there is no conflict as the people would be reliant on the state government to protect themselves from the federal government. Just as was the case in the revolutionary war when that federal government was King George.

 

[meaner gene]

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, that government has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the right consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that designating prohibited persons such as felons and the mentally ill is perfectly Constitutional.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that firearms may be prohibited in certain venues such as police stations and schools.

Conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that prohibiting the carrying of concealed arms is perfectly Constitutional.

And conservatives despise and reject Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the regulation of the commercial sales of firearms such as background checks and waiting periods is perfectly Constitutional.

The right’s unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law is consistent with their overall contempt for the Constitution itself.

Correct, and WOW !!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of which has anything to do with the Second Amendment, which is an individual – not collective – right.

Indeed, the military paradigm of the Founding Era has long been an anachronism no longer relevant; for well over a century state militia were not the first and only line of defense from foreign invasion or attack.

Moreover, the notion that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ private citizens to ‘form’ militias and be armed as soldiers or military combatants is likewise anachronistic, wrong, and devoid of Constitutional merit.

Defending America from invasion and attack is the sole purview of the US military and national guard, not private citizens with semi-automatic small arms.

You are correct under the legal theory of the constitution as a living document, but with the new conservative us supreme court, I have to operate under their legal doctrines, as they would be the ones to ultimately prevail.

Matt Gaetz's view actually would reverse DC V Heller, as an interpretation of the 2nd from applying the intent, meaning, and usage of those words at the time the constitution was written, and not their interpretation to fit the country as it is today.

As Justice Kennedy expressed in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Constitution is therefore neither living nor static; the Framers were wise to acknowledge the fact that they did not possess a comprehensive understanding as to what constitutes liberty and freedom while recognizing the immutable nature of the Founding Document’s principles.

Originalist dogma is therefore wrong, as is Gaetz and his fellow conservatives – who, as already noted, have nothing but contempt for Second Amendment case law.

Gaetz and most conservatives would indeed like to see Heller done away with and advance the ridiculous notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited’ and any and all regulation should be prohibited.

 

[meaner gene]

Yup. Scalia knowing that the Militia Clause was a weak argument had to decouple that from the 2A. It was blatant Judicial Activism by a hypocrite who claimed to be an "originalist"

Scalia could hve avoided saying the 2nd amendment had limitations on "the people" despite the clear text, had he reversed prior interpretations of "the people". But instead he did the road where he said that "the people" as used in at least 5 other sections of the constitution and amendments, means different things in different places. A strange reversal of conservative texturalalism.

 

[Clipper]

Of course Rep. Gaetz is on target here.

The Founding Fathers didn't establish the 2nd Amendment to acknowledge the right of guys to go out into the woods wearing orange outfits to sit in a tree stand with a rifle and beer.

Why do libs think that?

I remember John ******* Kerry mocking the working man in Boardman in 2004- he went into a sporting goods store looking like Elmer ******* Fudd and asked the clerk "Is this where I gets me a huntin' license " in his best Deplorable Accent.

Keep following Matty Boy who's gone from sex with minors to sniffing MTG's box. Typical perveted Retrumplican.