The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A well-regulated militia may be necessary for a free State, BUT everybody gets a machine gun."

That's what it says.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Militia or no militia, organized or not, the right of everybody to have machine guns shall not be infringed."

That's what the Amendment LITERALLY says.

It also says:

"and danpalos is a fucking asswipe."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

every weapons qualified person.

Me

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment. Natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd Amendment:

"A well-protected natural right of a person to keep and carry machine guns, shall not be infringed, which this amendment protects."

 

[danielpalos]

The 2nd Amendment:

"A well-protected natural right of a person to keep and carry machine guns, shall not be infringed, which this amendment protects."

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Nobody....and I truly mean not one swinging dick or flapping twat...takes you seriously. You have become a punchline.

Let's review how shitty your unsourced arguments have been, shall we?

• You have no authoritative sources baking your claim that natural rights are secured by State constitutions.
• You piggyback and conflate the term well-regulated to mean the National Guard, which originates from a statute law that was passed by congress 100+ years after the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
• To do the above, you use the terms "organized" verses "unorganized" and claim that only the "organized" militia means the "well-regulated" militia.
• You further claim, without sources or authorities, that only "necessary" militia, rather than individuals, are protected by the right to arms, so you can justify infringement.
• You go further to take the goose-stepping communist, collective approach to the term "People" and make it mean nobody, just like the commies have done and continue to do.

All of this is repeated over and over with ZERO sourcing and authority. Your idea of legal analysis and commentary is, in essence, the gospel according to danielpalos, whereas the rest of us have provided uncontested or uncontroverted sources and authority backing our positions.

So I ask you, dan--do YOU even take your own self seriously?

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Nobody....and I truly mean not one swinging dick or flapping twat...takes you seriously. You have become a punchline.

Let's review how shitty your unsourced arguments have been, shall we?

• You have no authoritative sources baking your claim that natural rights are secured by State constitutions.
• You piggyback and conflate the term well-regulated to mean the National Guard, which originates from a statute law that was passed by congress 100+ years after the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
• To do the above, you use the terms "organized" verses "unorganized" and claim that only the "organized" militia means the "well-regulated" militia.
• You further claim, without sources or authorities, that only "necessary" militia, rather than individuals, are protected by the right to arms, so you can justify infringement.
• You go further to take the goose-stepping communist, collective approach to the term "People" and make it mean nobody, just like the commies have done and continue to do.

All of this is repeated over and over with ZERO sourcing and authority. Your idea of legal analysis and commentary is, in essence, the gospel according to danielpalos, whereas the rest of us have provided uncontested or uncontroverted sources and authority backing our positions.

So I ask you, dan--do YOU even take your own self seriously?

A State Constitution is all the legal authority I need, in our Republic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A State Constitution is all the legal authority I need, in our Republic.

The 2nd Amendment is all I need.




You just don't have a response, do you?

Who said State Constitutions protect natural rights and not the US Constitution? On what legal authority do you rely?

You lose.

 

[danielpalos]

A State Constitution is all the legal authority I need, in our Republic.

The 2nd Amendment is all I need.




You just don't have a response, do you?

Who said State Constitutions protect natural rights and not the US Constitution? On what legal authority do you rely?

You lose.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

A State Constitution is all the legal authority I need, in our Republic.

The 2nd Amendment is all I need.




You just don't have a response, do you?

Who said State Constitutions protect natural rights and not the US Constitution? On what legal authority do you rely?

You lose.

For the poster who has been stalking you and using the funny button as a weapon, he should be reported for doing so.

From the Announcement thread:

"A clarification has been added to the "Site Wide Rules" section of the USMB Posting Guidelines on the Home Page. It's pretty self evident.

Moderation may act on obvious Stalking and Harassment of members on the forums.

This just officially adds a policy that USMB Staff has always followed. In addition, because of numerous complaints about the abuse of the "Funny Button" as a weapon --- and because we've seen harassing abuse of that feature -- the following note announces that Staff does consider chronic, malicious use of that feature as possible stalking/harassment.


Stalking/Harassing: USMB Moderation may consider the complaints of any member "funnying" 6 or more of their posts OUTSIDE OF THE TAUNTING AREAS in a 24 hour period to be a form of stalking/harrassment. You're welcome to contact the Mod Staff if you can provide proof thru your alert log that this has occurred in any 24 hour period and there's a PATTERN of this harassment from the perpetrator. Pattern means that it's happened in other threads chronically and repeatedly.

Don't file post Reports. Start a PM with one or more Mods and have your alert log file ready to copy/paste.

If determined to be malicious and excessive, warnings or other sanctions may be applied. Do NOT bring us cases or evidence from the past. Only incidents occuring 4 days after the date on this post will be considered.


For the old-timers -- when we had a "reputation system", we had to do the same thing with abuse of "Neg Rep". And we installed a rule almost identical to this one. And with the myriad of frustrations and high temper levels -- we're back to that situation again. If you report harassment under these cases, make certain that it is GROSSLY excessive, targeted, malicious, and pervasive. We will NOT act on any case where the 24 limit is exceeded and is limited to a single thread or isolated abuse."

Always here to help

 

[danielpalos]

A State Constitution is all the legal authority I need, in our Republic.

The 2nd Amendment is all I need.




You just don't have a response, do you?

Who said State Constitutions protect natural rights and not the US Constitution? On what legal authority do you rely?

You lose.

For the poster who has been stalking you and using the funny button as a weapon, he should be reported for this report.

From the Announcement thread:

"A clarification has been added to the "Site Wide Rules" section of the USMB Posting Guidelines on the Home Page. It's pretty self evident.

Moderation may act on obvious Stalking and Harassment of members on the forums.

This just officially adds a policy that USMB Staff has always followed. In addition, because of numerous complaints about the abuse of the "Funny Button" as a weapon --- and because we've seen harassing abuse of that feature -- the following note announces that Staff does consider chronic, malicious use of that feature as possible stalking/harassment.


Stalking/Harassing: USMB Moderation may consider the complaints of any member "funnying" 6 or more of their posts OUTSIDE OF THE TAUNTING AREAS in a 24 hour period to be a form of stalking/harrassment. You're welcome to contact the Mod Staff if you can provide proof thru your alert log that this has occurred in any 24 hour period and there's a PATTERN of this harassment from the perpetrator. Pattern means that it's happened in other threads chronically and repeatedly.

Don't file post Reports. Start a PM with one or more Mods and have your alert log file ready to copy/paste.

If determined to be malicious and excessive, warnings or other sanctions may be applied. Do NOT bring us cases or evidence from the past. Only incidents occuring 4 days after the date on this post will be considered.


For the old-timers -- when we had a "reputation system", we had to do the same thing with abuse of "Neg Rep". And we installed a rule almost identical to this one. And with the myriad of frustrations and high temper levels -- we're back to that situation again. If you report harassment under these cases, make certain that it is GROSSLY excessive, targeted, malicious, and pervasive. We will NOT act on any case where the 24 limit is exceeded and is limited to a single thread or isolated abuse."

Always here to help

they are stalking and harassing me, with their, "nothing but pure fallacy", masquerading as any form of "debate".

Get those of the opposing view to stop resorting to fallacy, and I will stop making fun of their alleged "arguments".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Adieu, all. There is no possibility of conversation with those who cannot understand anything other than their projections.

Which is definitely a good reason for you to remove yourself, so you'll quit doing that and clogging up the discussion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

they are stalking and harassing me, with their, "nothing but pure fallacy", masquerading as any form of "debate".

Get those of the opposing view to stop resorting to fallacy, and I will stop making fun of their alleged "arguments".

Hey dan. I posted this in the other thread, but because you have disparaged me here, I will post it again below.

You have cited to the Heller decision before (paragraph 2 or something). What do you think about this from Heller:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/opinion.pdf

____________________________-
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821(1998). 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 (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
___________________________________-

So, is this reasoning in Heller correct?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is still nothing to suggest that the range of arms available for sale, as well as prices for such, can not be regulated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is still nothing to suggest that the range of arms available for sale, as well as prices for such, can not be regulated.

Other than that word "infringement", which you seem to think you can avoid addressing by just pretending that I didn't already whup your ass on it.

Also, the prices are none of your fucking business, unless you happen to own a gun manufacturer or retailer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is still nothing to suggest that the range of arms available for sale, as well as prices for such, can not be regulated.

That goes to the heart of this discussion. Dan is saying that only "well-regulated" militia cannot be infringed.

My reading of the 2nd Amendment is a ban on Congressional action.

States were free to do what they believed necessary, but Congress was banned.

The 1934 NFA even contemplates the banning nature of the 2A because it works like a tax, which Congress does have authority to do.

 

[danielpalos]

they are stalking and harassing me, with their, "nothing but pure fallacy", masquerading as any form of "debate".

Get those of the opposing view to stop resorting to fallacy, and I will stop making fun of their alleged "arguments".

Hey dan. I posted this in the other thread, but because you have disparaged me here, I will post it again below.

You have cited to the Heller decision before (paragraph 2 or something). What do you think about this from Heller:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/opinion.pdf

____________________________-
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821(1998). 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 (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
___________________________________-

So, is this reasoning in Heller correct?

simple appeal to ignorance of the composition of the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

There is still nothing to suggest that the range of arms available for sale, as well as prices for such, can not be regulated.

Other than that word "infringement", which you seem to think you can avoid addressing by just pretending that I didn't already whup your ass on it.

Also, the prices are none of your fucking business, unless you happen to own a gun manufacturer or retailer.

already covered by natural rights, and; possession, is nine-tenths of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

There is still nothing to suggest that the range of arms available for sale, as well as prices for such, can not be regulated.

That goes to the heart of this discussion. Dan is saying that only "well-regulated" militia cannot be infringed.

My reading of the 2nd Amendment is a ban on Congressional action.

States were free to do what they believed necessary, but Congress was banned.

The 1934 NFA even contemplates the banning nature of the 2A because it works like a tax, which Congress does have authority to do.

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.