Second Amendment Rights

[frigidweirdo]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

 

[martybegan]

Given the adamant support for open carry by the 'Conservatives', I really believe that at the GOP Convention, all there should be packing. Make the Convention even more fun to watch.

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

"It", what do you mean by "it"? My post, the OP? What?

Heller. try to keep up.

 

[martybegan]

If the truth be known there are probably more left wing hypocrites packing concealed iron in Detroit and Chicago and long time liberal dominated north east cities during democrat events than there are "conservatives who support open carry" .

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

Coward.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is so funny. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't have anything to do with carrying arms.

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

 

[Rustic]

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

You're taking it out of context...

 

[jon_berzerk]

yeah so what

the people have the right to form a militia

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

You're taking it out of context...

which he needs to do

because it is an all out fail

 

[Rustic]

Just like breathing everyone has a right to own and bear arms, less they fucked up and lost that right. That simple
Has nothing to do with militias...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Carry arms, whether openly or carry and conceal are NOT protected by the 2A at all.

We can see this in that the NRA supports carry and conceal permits, if you have a permit, it's not a right, and if the NRA supports it, you know that it's not a right.

In Presser they said it wasn't a right, in Heller the reaffirmed Presser.

There has never, ever been a right to carry arms. Sorry.

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

"It", what do you mean by "it"? My post, the OP? What?

Heller. try to keep up.

The write HELLER, I'm not a mindreader.

Heller upheld Presser.

Presser said "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "

So, men, getting together, armed and then parading around, ie, carrying arms, is not protected by the 2A.

Heller stated:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Heller merely said the right to keep and bear arms was individual. It didn't say the right to bear arms was the right to carry arms. Actually the writing was very political. On the one hand it appeased the right who claim it means "carry' and on the other they simply didn't make it mean "carry".

For example here:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. "

They say the 2A is not unlimited. Very true. It is not the right to keep and carry and weapon whatsoever... true again, mainly because it is the right to keep but not the right to carry. Then they basically state why carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. They use language to make people like you believe they have said something, when actually they did not say "bear arms' was "carry arms" at all.

Scalia gave the opinion of the court. He said things like:

" Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause"

So, what is the connection between carrying arms in your daily life and the militia? There is none, not a single link at all.
There are links between an individual's right to own arms because such arms could be used in the militia when that person is called forth. And the right to be in the militia is also clearly relevant to the militia.

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "

"Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”"

So he goes through different meanings that have been found and explains them, more or less without opinion, with the exception of when talking about some views that Stevens took that are, quite frankly, not right anyway. But at no point does he state that one is right, he keeps it vague, keeps it so no one can pick up a phrase and be able to say "this is what they mean".

But at the same time he's just upheld Presser which basically says that carry arms is not a right.

Chahhh Ching.

 

[Rustic]

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

"It", what do you mean by "it"? My post, the OP? What?

Heller. try to keep up.

The write HELLER, I'm not a mindreader.

Heller upheld Presser.

Presser said "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "

So, men, getting together, armed and then parading around, ie, carrying arms, is not protected by the 2A.

Heller stated:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Heller merely said the right to keep and bear arms was individual. It didn't say the right to bear arms was the right to carry arms. Actually the writing was very political. On the one hand it appeased the right who claim it means "carry' and on the other they simply didn't make it mean "carry".

For example here:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. "

They say the 2A is not unlimited. Very true. It is not the right to keep and carry and weapon whatsoever... true again, mainly because it is the right to keep but not the right to carry. Then they basically state why carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. They use language to make people like you believe they have said something, when actually they did not say "bear arms' was "carry arms" at all.

Scalia gave the opinion of the court. He said things like:

" Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause"

So, what is the connection between carrying arms in your daily life and the militia? There is none, not a single link at all.
There are links between an individual's right to own arms because such arms could be used in the militia when that person is called forth. And the right to be in the militia is also clearly relevant to the militia.

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "

"Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”"

So he goes through different meanings that have been found and explains them, more or less without opinion, with the exception of when talking about some views that Stevens took that are, quite frankly, not right anyway. But at no point does he state that one is right, he keeps it vague, keeps it so no one can pick up a phrase and be able to say "this is what they mean".

But at the same time he's just upheld Presser which basically says that carry arms is not a right.

Chahhh Ching.

So, buy more guns and ammo... It's a God given right

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does it make you a hypocrite?

I would prefer to live in a society where people didn't have guns. However because people do have guns I feel unsafe and feel the need to have a gun to protect myself. I would prefer not to have to need a gun to protect myself.

Where's the hypocrisy?

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

Coward.

Jeezus. You're going off with insults.

You asked a shit question that has nothing to do with anything. Why the hell would I answer your crap question?

 

[martybegan]

Then what, exactly, does the word "bear" mean?

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

Then why were the People given the right to keep and bear arms, and not the militia?

The current setup of considering the National Guard to be the militia defeats the purpose of the amendment, which is to have government not able to decide who gets to be armed and who doesn't on a whim. It is not the people's fault that the States no longer allow or use the local militias seen in the beginning of the country, however that in no way removes the right of people as individuals to keep and bear arms without government getting to decide who is "worthy" or not, without a compelling reason, such as felony conviction, mental adjudication, or designating controlled areas as gun restricted areas.

 

[martybegan]

In a society without guns the biggest and strongest of us would rule over the others. You want that?

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

Coward.

Jeezus. You're going off with insults.

You asked a shit question that has nothing to do with anything. Why the hell would I answer your crap question?

I answered that, its because you are a a coward. A person with a pair would at least say "well that's a shit question, but" and go on to explain.

 

[martybegan]

What part of "bear" arms do you not get?

Heller was the first step, others will follow.

What part?

I've posted this many times on here

Second Amendment Rights

Go read post 75, it's on the previous page.

Let me put it this way, you don't understand the Heller case at all/

Heller UPHELD Presser, which said carrying arms was NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE 2A.

No, it just said that some regulations are acceptable, it did not say carrying arms was NOT a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

"It", what do you mean by "it"? My post, the OP? What?

Heller. try to keep up.

The write HELLER, I'm not a mindreader.

Heller upheld Presser.

Presser said "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "

So, men, getting together, armed and then parading around, ie, carrying arms, is not protected by the 2A.

Heller stated:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Heller merely said the right to keep and bear arms was individual. It didn't say the right to bear arms was the right to carry arms. Actually the writing was very political. On the one hand it appeased the right who claim it means "carry' and on the other they simply didn't make it mean "carry".

For example here:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. "

They say the 2A is not unlimited. Very true. It is not the right to keep and carry and weapon whatsoever... true again, mainly because it is the right to keep but not the right to carry. Then they basically state why carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. They use language to make people like you believe they have said something, when actually they did not say "bear arms' was "carry arms" at all.

Scalia gave the opinion of the court. He said things like:

" Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause"

So, what is the connection between carrying arms in your daily life and the militia? There is none, not a single link at all.
There are links between an individual's right to own arms because such arms could be used in the militia when that person is called forth. And the right to be in the militia is also clearly relevant to the militia.

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "

"Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia."

"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”"

So he goes through different meanings that have been found and explains them, more or less without opinion, with the exception of when talking about some views that Stevens took that are, quite frankly, not right anyway. But at no point does he state that one is right, he keeps it vague, keeps it so no one can pick up a phrase and be able to say "this is what they mean".

But at the same time he's just upheld Presser which basically says that carry arms is not a right.

Chahhh Ching.

Neither of these said that a locality can ban the carrying of guns "because they feel like it" which is what NYC does via its de facto ban. All you do is write more and more blather, trying to sound smart, and you don't discuss the actual context of what we are debating. You are a "wall of text" responder, where you start with a wrong conclusion, and hemmorage quotes to back up said wrong conclusion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let me first start explaining how the English language works, just for clarification and to make a point.

If you have the word "stool" for example.

"stool" means "a piece of solid waste from someone’s body"

So, we have a story "John walked into the bar and sat down on the wooden stool with three legs".

Do we believe that this stool in the bar was a piece of solid waste from someone's body that was made of wood and had three legs? No we don't. We know this is "a seat that has legs but no support for your back or arms"

The point being that just because "stool" can mean "shit", it doesn't mean it does every time.


So.... bear can mean carry. In the context of "bear arms" it does not mean carry and never has.

The easiest way to define "bear arms" is to look at how the Founding Fathers used it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

They were discussing the last clause of this proposal of what would become the 2A.

See the last part, religiously scrupulous people would not be compelled to "bear arms".

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

So he's using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms".

Mr Jackson said: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

He used "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".

At this time, "bear arms" meant to be in military service, in this context it was rendering military service in the militia.

That is what "bear arms" means.

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

Then why were the People given the right to keep and bear arms, and not the militia?

The current setup of considering the National Guard to be the militia defeats the purpose of the amendment, which is to have government not able to decide who gets to be armed and who doesn't on a whim. It is not the people's fault that the States no longer allow or use the local militias seen in the beginning of the country, however that in no way removes the right of people as individuals to keep and bear arms without government getting to decide who is "worthy" or not, without a compelling reason, such as felony conviction, mental adjudication, or designating controlled areas as gun restricted areas.

Okay. I'll explain.

You want to keep the militia out of the hands of the feds, even though you're giving the feds the power to call up the militia.

This is not so simple.

You can't give a right to the militia, that's not what right are.

You protect the individual to be in the militia and you protect their weapons, therefore the US govt can't touch the militia at its very heart.

However they can and have done. The Dick Act. They had a problem. If you make the National Guard as the only militia, then people would have a right to be in it. However the problem with the militia was discipline. So you make two militias, one which is disciplined, one which you can kick people out of, and the other where everyone else goes and can't complain because they're automatically in the militia.

Why do you think they made the unorganized militia?

The thing is, the National Guard is the militia from the point of view of dealing with things the US govt needs it to deal with, like disasters, wars and so on.
However the unorganized militia, while completely and utterly useless, still has individuals who have guns and could, in times of need, come together as a fighting force, especially against the federal govt, which is what all this about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't think this is the case right now?

You don't think those who control the govt haven't go everyone exactly where they want them?

I mean, seriously, how many people vote for parties other than the main too parties?

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

Coward.

Jeezus. You're going off with insults.

You asked a shit question that has nothing to do with anything. Why the hell would I answer your crap question?

I answered that, its because you are a a coward. A person with a pair would at least say "well that's a shit question, but" and go on to explain.

And you're insulting people. I don't deal with insulters. Bye.

 

[martybegan]

What a freaking stretch. The way it was written, while the States maintain the right to militias, it is the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms. If they wanted it to be limited to militia service they would have said so, not delegating the right to the PEOPLE.

Again.

The Militia was composed of the people with their own weapons.

The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia by protecting individuals being able to OWN weapons so they could use them in the militia, and also protect the individuals being able to be in the militia, so they could use those weapons in the militia.


The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. It's clear from ALL THE DOCUMENTS that exist from the period.

It's also clear from the Presser case which was upheld by the Heller case. So, current law in the US is that bear arms is not carry arms. Never has been, and still isn't.

Now, you can make stuff up and claim "it's a stretch" and all that, but I'm backing myself up with documents written by the founding fathers, by documents from the Supreme Court, I can go get things from George Washington too, if you like, that show that "bear arms" meant "render military service" at the time. But then again I've already proven it.

You have nothing. I've been talking about this for a long, long time on the internet and the only documents people have that attempt to refute this stuff are basically just taken out of context.

So back in colonial times a person could be arrested for walking around with a musket? Is that what you are telling me? A person has a right to keep and bear arms, not just when the government decides to let you. The militia clause was to allow the States to keep an armed force as a counter to the federal government in part, and as an aid to the federal government when needed. That the States don't muster the militia anymore in now way infringes on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms. If they meant it to be part of the militia, they would make being part of it a condition, which they clearly didn't.

No, it's not what I'm telling you.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms. However "bear arms" is not carry arms, it's the right to be in the militia.

Actually you're wrong about the last part. The militia acts were designed to detail how people were meant to be.

The 1792 militia act, for example, stated how the militia would be formed.

" It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)"

The Dick Act then set out the organized and unorganized militias.

So, there are constitutional issues, and then legal issues, composition of the militia is a legal issue.

So, the 2A merely protected the militia by protecting the two key components of the militia, first, the weapons the militia would use, and secondly the personnel that would use the weapons.

There was no reason to protect the militia by protecting individuals to go around carrying guns, and EVERY document from then to now suggests this.

Then why were the People given the right to keep and bear arms, and not the militia?

The current setup of considering the National Guard to be the militia defeats the purpose of the amendment, which is to have government not able to decide who gets to be armed and who doesn't on a whim. It is not the people's fault that the States no longer allow or use the local militias seen in the beginning of the country, however that in no way removes the right of people as individuals to keep and bear arms without government getting to decide who is "worthy" or not, without a compelling reason, such as felony conviction, mental adjudication, or designating controlled areas as gun restricted areas.

Okay. I'll explain.

You want to keep the militia out of the hands of the feds, even though you're giving the feds the power to call up the militia.

This is not so simple.

You can't give a right to the militia, that's not what right are.

You protect the individual to be in the militia and you protect their weapons, therefore the US govt can't touch the militia at its very heart.

However they can and have done. The Dick Act. They had a problem. If you make the National Guard as the only militia, then people would have a right to be in it. However the problem with the militia was discipline. So you make two militias, one which is disciplined, one which you can kick people out of, and the other where everyone else goes and can't complain because they're automatically in the militia.

Why do you think they made the unorganized militia?

The thing is, the National Guard is the militia from the point of view of dealing with things the US govt needs it to deal with, like disasters, wars and so on.
However the unorganized militia, while completely and utterly useless, still has individuals who have guns and could, in times of need, come together as a fighting force, especially against the federal govt, which is what all this about.

What does this have to do with NYC saying I can only carry a concealed handgun in public "if they say so"?

Also what does it have to do with NYC making me wait 6 months and pay $1000 to just keep a freaking revolver in my house?

 

[martybegan]

You didn't answer the question.

It's kind of like asking me if I want fairy princesses to be eaten by dragons. Why would I answer such a question?

Coward.

Jeezus. You're going off with insults.

You asked a shit question that has nothing to do with anything. Why the hell would I answer your crap question?

I answered that, its because you are a a coward. A person with a pair would at least say "well that's a shit question, but" and go on to explain.

And you're insulting people. I don't deal with insulters. Bye.

Nut up, ballerina boy.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The necessary and proper clause simply gives congress the power to implement laws that are necessary and proper to carry out the other powers listed in the section. It doesnot confer plenary legislative power. Therefore, the power to enact any gun control laws cannot be implied by this power.

This is the crux of your basic misunderstanding of this entire issue. And where did I state or imply that the necessary and proper clause conveyed plenary power? That is your fiction!

You are DEAD WRONG based on the landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland from almost 200 years ago, et al, although I believe your hubris will inspire your denial that and the belief that your acumen exceeds that of C. J. Marshall. This passage is from the Syllabus of that case decided by Chief Justice Marshall referring to the Necessary and Proper Clause, AKA the "elastic clause".

"There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance." < McCulloch v. Maryland >

AND FROM THE DECISION ITSELF;

But the argument on which most reliance is placed is drawn from that peculiar language of this clause. Congress is not empowered by it to make all laws which may have relation to the powers conferred on the Government, but such only as may be "necessary and proper" for carrying them into execution. The word "necessary" is considered as controlling the whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for the execution of the granted powers to such as are indispensable, and without which the power would be nugatory. That it excludes the choice of means, and leaves to Congress in each case that only which is most direct and simple. < Ibid >

AND FROM ANOTHER DECISION;

Invoking the cautionary instruction that we may not “pile inference upon inference” in order to sustain congressional action under Article I, Lopez , 514 U. S., at 567, respondents argue that, when legislating pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress’ authority can be no more than one step removed from a specifically enumerated power. See Brief for Respondents 21–22; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27–28. But this argument is irreconcilable with our precedents. Again, take Greenwood as an example. In that case we upheld the (likely indefinite) civil commitment of a mentally incompetent federal defendant who was accused of robbing a United States Post Office. 350 U. S., at 369, 375. The underlying enumerated Article I power was the power to “Establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” Art. I, §8, cl. 7. But, as Chief Justice Marshall recognized in McCulloch ,

“the power ‘to establish post offices and post roads’ … is executed by the single act of making the establishment… . [F]rom this has been inferred the power and duty of carrying the mail along the post road, from one post office to another. And, from this implied power, has again been inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post office, or rob the mail.” 4 Wheat., at 417 (emphasis added).

And, as we have explained, from the implied power to punish we have further inferred both the power to imprison, see supra, at 8–9, and, in Greenwood , the federal civil-commitment power. < UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK >

It appears that the Supremes as far back as 1819 forward to this very day have a vastly different comprehension of the totality of Article I § 8 than yourself and others of your persuasion. Or will you tell us all that SCOTUS has gotten it wrong for almost 200 years.

 

[Centinel]

This is the crux of your basic misunderstanding of this entire issue. And where did I state or imply that the necessary and proper clause conveyed plenary power? That is your fiction!

You are DEAD WRONG based on the landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland from almost 200 years ago, et al, although I believe your hubris will inspire your denial that and the belief that your acumen exceeds that of C. J. Marshall. This passage is from the Syllabus of that case decided by Chief Justice Marshall referring to the Necessary and Proper Clause, AKA the "elastic clause".

"There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance." < McCulloch v. Maryland >

AND FROM THE DECISION ITSELF;

But the argument on which most reliance is placed is drawn from that peculiar language of this clause. Congress is not empowered by it to make all laws which may have relation to the powers conferred on the Government, but such only as may be "necessary and proper" for carrying them into execution. The word "necessary" is considered as controlling the whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for the execution of the granted powers to such as are indispensable, and without which the power would be nugatory. That it excludes the choice of means, and leaves to Congress in each case that only which is most direct and simple. < Ibid >

AND FROM ANOTHER DECISION;

Invoking the cautionary instruction that we may not “pile inference upon inference” in order to sustain congressional action under Article I, Lopez , 514 U. S., at 567, respondents argue that, when legislating pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress’ authority can be no more than one step removed from a specifically enumerated power. See Brief for Respondents 21–22; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27–28. But this argument is irreconcilable with our precedents. Again, take Greenwood as an example. In that case we upheld the (likely indefinite) civil commitment of a mentally incompetent federal defendant who was accused of robbing a United States Post Office. 350 U. S., at 369, 375. The underlying enumerated Article I power was the power to “Establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” Art. I, §8, cl. 7. But, as Chief Justice Marshall recognized in McCulloch ,

“the power ‘to establish post offices and post roads’ … is executed by the single act of making the establishment… . [F]rom this has been inferred the power and duty of carrying the mail along the post road, from one post office to another. And, from this implied power, has again been inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post office, or rob the mail.” 4 Wheat., at 417 (emphasis added).

And, as we have explained, from the implied power to punish we have further inferred both the power to imprison, see supra, at 8–9, and, in Greenwood , the federal civil-commitment power. < UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK >

It appears that the Supremes as far back as 1819 forward to this very day have a vastly different comprehension of the totality of Article I § 8 than yourself and others of your persuasion. Or will you tell us all that SCOTUS has gotten it wrong for almost 200 years.

We agree that each specifically enumerated power granted in art I, section 8 implies that a host of laws that are necessary and proper to carry it into execution. The post office example is a good one. Since congress has the specifically enumerated power to establish post offices and roads, it is implied that it also has the power to enact a law to punish those who steal the mail. Such a law is necessary and proper to carry into execution the power to establish post offices and post roads.

So which of the specifically enumerated powers requires gun control laws in order to carry it into execution?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is the crux of your basic misunderstanding of this entire issue. And where did I state or imply that the necessary and proper clause conveyed plenary power? That is your fiction!

You are DEAD WRONG based on the landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland from almost 200 years ago, et al, although I believe your hubris will inspire your denial that and the belief that your acumen exceeds that of C. J. Marshall. This passage is from the Syllabus of that case decided by Chief Justice Marshall referring to the Necessary and Proper Clause, AKA the "elastic clause".

"There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance." < McCulloch v. Maryland >

AND FROM THE DECISION ITSELF;

But the argument on which most reliance is placed is drawn from that peculiar language of this clause. Congress is not empowered by it to make all laws which may have relation to the powers conferred on the Government, but such only as may be "necessary and proper" for carrying them into execution. The word "necessary" is considered as controlling the whole sentence, and as limiting the right to pass laws for the execution of the granted powers to such as are indispensable, and without which the power would be nugatory. That it excludes the choice of means, and leaves to Congress in each case that only which is most direct and simple. < Ibid >

AND FROM ANOTHER DECISION;

Invoking the cautionary instruction that we may not “pile inference upon inference” in order to sustain congressional action under Article I, Lopez , 514 U. S., at 567, respondents argue that, when legislating pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress’ authority can be no more than one step removed from a specifically enumerated power. See Brief for Respondents 21–22; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27–28. But this argument is irreconcilable with our precedents. Again, take Greenwood as an example. In that case we upheld the (likely indefinite) civil commitment of a mentally incompetent federal defendant who was accused of robbing a United States Post Office. 350 U. S., at 369, 375. The underlying enumerated Article I power was the power to “Establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” Art. I, §8, cl. 7. But, as Chief Justice Marshall recognized in McCulloch ,

“the power ‘to establish post offices and post roads’ … is executed by the single act of making the establishment… . [F]rom this has been inferred the power and duty of carrying the mail along the post road, from one post office to another. And, from this implied power, has again been inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post office, or rob the mail.” 4 Wheat., at 417 (emphasis added).

And, as we have explained, from the implied power to punish we have further inferred both the power to imprison, see supra, at 8–9, and, in Greenwood , the federal civil-commitment power. < UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK >

It appears that the Supremes as far back as 1819 forward to this very day have a vastly different comprehension of the totality of Article I § 8 than yourself and others of your persuasion. Or will you tell us all that SCOTUS has gotten it wrong for almost 200 years.

We agree that each specifically enumerated power granted in art I, section 8 implies that a host of laws that are necessary and proper to carry it into execution. The post office example is a good one. Since congress has the specifically enumerated power to establish post offices and roads, it is implied that it also has the power to enact a law to punish those who steal the mail. Such a law is necessary and proper to carry into execution the power to establish post offices and post roads.

So which of the specifically enumerated powers requires gun control laws in order to carry it into execution?

NOT SO BLOODY FAST! Let's start with the post office example. Where is the power to pass legislation to prosecute criminals involved in mail fraud within Article I, § 8? I don't see it explicitly written in the enumeration, so how did the Congress find the power to enact such, the scofflaws? In your own word please.