Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[CurveLight]

No it is not. It is a 2 condition sentence you dumb ass. Further at the time of the writing of the Constitution "well regulated" meant nothing more then well drilled. The bill of rights is a conglomerate of over 180 Amendments. every amendment provides more then one right and not always just to one entity. But you would have us believe the 2nd is the only one where the Founders only enumerated one right AND did not mean that the term "the people" referred to an individual right.

So if you abide by your own interpretation where do gun owners go to get "well drilled?" (Don't say BP)

Their local range.
But it isn't a requirement of gun ownership.

That means the 2nd isn't being followed.

 

[Jeremy]

So if you abide by your own interpretation where do gun owners go to get "well drilled?" (Don't say BP)

Their local range.
But it isn't a requirement of gun ownership.

That means the 2nd isn't being followed.

Why is that? Did the states call up the militia? ******* weak dude. Your starting to sound like the "Baghdad Bob" of the now failed gun grabber movement.

 

[CurveLight]

Their local range.
But it isn't a requirement of gun ownership.

That means the 2nd isn't being followed.

Why is that? Did the states call up the militia? ******* weak dude. Your starting to sound like the "Baghdad Bob" of the now failed gun grabber movement.

It should be obvious. If it means well drilled it means gun owners must be.......well drilled. If they are not then the 2nd isn't being followed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That means the 2nd isn't being followed.

Why is that? Did the states call up the militia? ******* weak dude. Your starting to sound like the "Baghdad Bob" of the now failed gun grabber movement.

It should be obvious. If it means well drilled it means gun owners must be.......well drilled. If they are not then the 2nd isn't being followed.

Wrong. The 2nd gives the States the right to a militia and the people a right to be armed. It does not REQUIRE a militia for the people to retain their right. Further the militia is considered everyone whether they drill or not which has always been true.

The State can not have a militia if the people do not arms. You lose, and of course we have 3 different Supreme Court decisions to show you lose. Move to Britain if you do not want citizens to have the right to be armed.

 

[CurveLight]

Why is that? Did the states call up the militia? ******* weak dude. Your starting to sound like the "Baghdad Bob" of the now failed gun grabber movement.

It should be obvious. If it means well drilled it means gun owners must be.......well drilled. If they are not then the 2nd isn't being followed.

Wrong. The 2nd gives the States the right to a militia and the people a right to be armed. It does not REQUIRE a militia for the people to retain their right. Further the militia is considered everyone whether they drill or not which has always been true.

The State can not have a militia if the people do not arms. You lose, and of course we have 3 different Supreme Court decisions to show you lose. Move to Britain if you do not want citizens to have the right to be armed.

I've already clearly stated I fully support the right for people to have guns so why make such a false accusation?
If it means "well drilled militia" then where is it? Are you seriously suggesting a bunch of individuals who never meet each other and have never drilled qualify as a "well drilled militia" simply because each has a gun? The problem is you guys have to read the Amendment backwards and ignore the Militia to try and justify your argument.

Also, it does not give the "States" the Right.....not until this last SCOTUS decision. The word "State" references the US as a whole and not individual States.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

Scalia disposed of that nonsense in Heller. You really need to get with the times.

What? With his "prefatory" and "operative" bullshit? You really shouldn't assume what others know or don't know based merely on disagreement you assumptive ignorant asswipe.

That "bullshit" happens to be the law of the land, the definitive interpretation of the clause. I would say Scalia knows more than you. I would even say that just comparing Scalia to you in any manner at all is a gross insult to a great jurist, **********.

 

[CurveLight]

Scalia disposed of that nonsense in Heller. You really need to get with the times.

What? With his "prefatory" and "operative" bullshit? You really shouldn't assume what others know or don't know based merely on disagreement you assumptive ignorant asswipe.

That "bullshit" happens to be the law of the land, the definitive interpretation of the clause. I would say Scalia knows more than you. I would even say that just comparing Scalia to you in any manner at all is a gross insult to a great jurist, **********.

I figured you'd jump to that fallacy quickly and you did. Judges and courts are not infallible and in case you haven't noticed.......Rulings do change. Go back to your fantasy world......

 

[daveman]

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.


Nice and slow:
1. Your inability or purposeful misunderstanding is not 'All of that dancing."

2. The Constitution is known as the Supreme Law of the Land

3. George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights. He stated "the whole people..."= militia

4. If the militia has the right to arms, and the militia is "the whole people".. then everybody has he right to be armed.

now get this: if the militia is the whole people, then individuals are part of the group that has the right to arms.

Now, you may continue to play dumb.

The Prince song is "1999" you ******* whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Your ranting is meaningless. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed an individual right.

But keep on being angry on the internet. It's all you can do about it.

 

[Father Time]

Ok I'm confused, wasn't this all ready covered by overturning the D.C. gun ban?

Not quite. D.C. is a federal enclave, so its relationship to the federal government is unique among American cities. As I said in an earlier post, we knew the Second Amendment puts restrictions on the federal government (and through that decision we knew that trickled down to federal enclaves) but until yesterday it had never been established that it applies to state or local governments.

Oh Ok. Thanks for explaining that.

 

[ConHog]

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.


Nice and slow:
1. Your inability or purposeful misunderstanding is not 'All of that dancing."

2. The Constitution is known as the Supreme Law of the Land

3. George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights. He stated "the whole people..."= militia

4. If the militia has the right to arms, and the militia is "the whole people".. then everybody has he right to be armed.

now get this: if the militia is the whole people, then individuals are part of the group that has the right to arms.

Now, you may continue to play dumb.

The Prince song is "1999" you ******* whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Your ranting is meaningless. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed an individual right.

But keep on being angry on the internet. It's all you can do about it.

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

 

[daveman]

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

 

[CurveLight]

The Prince song is "1999" you ******* whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Your ranting is meaningless. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed an individual right.

But keep on being angry on the internet. It's all you can do about it.

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

This is a great example of what I mean by people using the 2nd......err...I mean using parts of the 2nd to try to justify their argument.

 

[CurveLight]

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

 

[ConHog]

curved is just angry period.

As for the 2nd.

CLEARLY the people refers to US citizens, in EVERY case. We the People. Remember? The framers absolutely intended for us to have the right to own guns. Now whether those rights extend into government not having any place in limiting those rights, obviously this not true, they can limit any right, with good cause; but unless that good cause is show, we have the right to "bear arms"

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, daveman, you don't get to make up your own definitions, my friend.

 

[CurveLight]

Indeed. And as ruled in Heller, leftists being scared of guns is not good cause.

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More strawmen..........can you attempt to feign intellectual honesty in just one thread?

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

The Supreme Court trumps you every time. THEY decide legality and Constitutionality and unfortunately for you THEY decided that the 2nd means exactly what we are saying, an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms. And no requirement it be linked to service in a militia.

Go cry yourself to sleep, you lose you gun grabbing loon.

 

[CurveLight]

A) Do you even know what a strawman is?
B) Do you really feel you are in a position to question anyone's intellectual honesty?

Do you really and truly believe that the 2nd means that only a MILITIA is allowed to own weapons? You do realize that hunting for your own food was still pretty common in 1776 correct? Do you think the framers meant ok from now on only militias can hunt? Another thing to remember is that Jefferson , you know the author of the COTUS lived almost in fear of a tyrannical government and so wanted to provide the PEOPLE with the absolute protection from losing their weapons.

After reading a couple of your views on constitutional matters, I can tell you that you need to do some research on the subject. Or just stop lying, which ever applies.

I've never been dishonest you cocksucking *****. Why accuse others of what you are guilty of?

The strawman is people are "afraid of guns." Sure, there may be some that are but that is not why I am pointing out the 2nd does not state what many wish it would.

I'm pointing out the 2nd is focused on a well regulated militia that is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say "The people have to be armed." It is a single sentence stating the Militia provides the security and not simply individuals.

Your "hunting" red herring is a ******* joke. The 2nd was written in a manner to allow only certain people to own guns who would belong to a militia. It does not say individuals are not allowed to own guns.

Your assessment of my Constitutional views is hilarious. After ***** slapping you ten ways from Tuesday in the BSA thread do you really think your opinion has any merit? Rotfl! Stop being such a useless ****.

The Supreme Court trumps you every time. THEY decide legality and Constitutionality and unfortunately for you THEY decided that the 2nd means exactly what we are saying, an INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms. And no requirement it be linked to service in a militia.

Go cry yourself to sleep, you lose you gun grabbing loon.

Simply saying SCOTUS says I'm wrong is the fallacy of appeal to authority. If SCOTUS said you have to give foot massages to Code Pink activists would you say they are correct?

Also, you keep falsely accusing me of trying to take guns away after I have already clearly stated I support the right for people to own their own guns. Trying to lie again will help reveal even more how much of a dishonest crybaby **** you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

What? With his "prefatory" and "operative" bullshit? You really shouldn't assume what others know or don't know based merely on disagreement you assumptive ignorant asswipe.

That "bullshit" happens to be the law of the land, the definitive interpretation of the clause. I would say Scalia knows more than you. I would even say that just comparing Scalia to you in any manner at all is a gross insult to a great jurist, **********.

I figured you'd jump to that fallacy quickly and you did. Judges and courts are not infallible and in case you haven't noticed.......Rulings do change. Go back to your fantasy world......

Your reading skills are on a par with your reasoning skills.
There is no fallacy. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution means. We now have an authoritative ruling that says that the first clause is not operative on the rest of the amendment. If you know more jurisprudence than Scalia you need to be doing something other than posting here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.


Nice and slow:
1. Your inability or purposeful misunderstanding is not 'All of that dancing."

2. The Constitution is known as the Supreme Law of the Land

3. George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights. He stated "the whole people..."= militia

4. If the militia has the right to arms, and the militia is "the whole people".. then everybody has he right to be armed.

now get this: if the militia is the whole people, then individuals are part of the group that has the right to arms.

Now, you may continue to play dumb.

The Prince song is "1999" you ******* whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Guess what, you are wrong, because SCOTUS said you are. All you are doing now is whining.