The original intent of the second amendment

[M14 Shooter]

Posting part of a quote is dishonest! And a rule violation.

Only if done to change the meaning of your post -- but hey, feel free to report me.

So, given above puts firearms into the Arms...

It does not matter how many times you state your false equivalency, it remains a false equivalency.
I'll make this easier to understand:
Grenades can be "controlled" w/o running afoul of the 2nd because they are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.
That grenades can be controlled in no way means firearms can be similarly controlled w/o running afoul of the 2nd.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Only if done to change the meaning of your post -- but hey, feel free to report me.

It does not matter how many times you state your false equivalency, it remains a false equivalency.
I'll make this easier to understand:
Grenades can be "controlled" w/o running afoul of the 2nd because they are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.
That grenades can be controlled in no way means firearms can be similarly controlled w/o running afoul of the 2nd.

In general, an equivalence is “false” when: The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.

Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war

Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend. Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war

All I can do is demonstrate how you are wrong, I cannot make you believe it, should you choose not to.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In general, an equivalence is “false” when: The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.

In this case, your false equivalence is your dishonest attempt to take the dictionary definition of 'arms" and equate it to the legal definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment, knowing full well the dissimilar definitions negate your argument.
That is, to make a point here, you have to lie.

 

[Rye Catcher]

All I can do is demonstrate how you are wrong, I cannot make you believe it, should you choose not to.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

Well, prove me wrong. Provide evidence that guns are not used to kill, or to defend a person, their property or their country?

Thesaurus results for ARMS

Synonyms for ARMS: guns, firearms, rifles, pistols, small arms, handguns, revolvers, pieces; Antonyms of ARMS: weaknesses, impotences, impotencies, strips, deprives, divests, dispossesses

www.merriam-webster.com

a portable weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder

• soldiers grabbing their arms and helmets and heading into battle

Synonyms for arms

• firearms,
• guns,
• heat
• [slang],
• pieces,
• small arms

Words Related to arms

• derringers,
• forty-fives
• (or .45s),
• gats
• [slang],
• handguns,
• pistols,
• revolvers,
• rods
• [slang],
• roscoes
• [slang],
• sidearms,
• six-guns,
• six-shooters,
• zip guns
• self-loaders,
• semiautomatics
• blunderbusses,
• breechloaders,
• culverins,
• fieldpieces,
• firelocks,
• flintlocks,
• harquebuses
• (or arquebuses),
• matchlocks,
• muskets,
• rifles,
• shotguns,
• smoothbores,
• twenty-twos
• (or .22s)
• AK-47s,
• assault rifles,
• assault weapons,
• automatics,
• carbines,
• machine guns,
• machine pistols,
• repeaters,
• submachine guns,
• tommy guns
• spearguns

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, prove me wrong.

I did.
You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence: "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I did.
You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence: "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.

LOL Your sure are stubborn and not very well educated or bright. Keep on believing this fantasy "shall not be infringed" and that you personally can define Arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL Your sure are stubborn and not very well educated or bright.

I accept your surrender.
Only you can keep you from choosing to be wrong.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I accept your surrender.
Only you can keep you from choosing to be wrong.

The white flag is not shown to you; in fact you've admitted defeat using this insipid post lack of credibility and lack of originality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The white flag is not shown to you;

It was, indeed.
You choose to be wrong.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I did.
You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence: "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.

In re my time here as Wry Catcher, and in response to your signature line, which changes the tune as do most liars and creeps, like you. I will post the exact quote from my post 88 in May of 1916:

"Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic. But if being foolish make you happy, I very much support your right to enjoy being a fool. Have a nice day."

To this day M14 shooter has remained the same dishonest creep and obsessed supporter of guns, notwithstanding the number of deaths by gun in the last five years +.

 

[2aguy]

In general, an equivalence is “false” when: The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.

Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war

Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend. Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.

Wrong....the grenade is a weapon of area effect, a gun is not...when a grenade explodes it covers a large area, a gun does not.......the 2nd Amendment covers arms .....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

Grenades would fit the Dangerous and unusual exclusion, while rifles and pistols do not....

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

You have no rational argument for what you want...

More on "Dangerous and Unusual," and why it doesn't apply to rifles or pistols...

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

 

[2aguy]

In general, an equivalence is “false” when: The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.

Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war

Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend. Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.

And in particular...the AR-15 rifle..........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III

 

[2aguy]

In Heller, Scalia weakened the "shall not be infringed" dependent clause.

"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."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is an independent clause;

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is a dependent clause.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/independent_and_dependent_clauses/index.html

It would be would be nice if

1) You stopped lying about this topic....

2) You were familiar with the information you were lying about....

Heller...Scalia went through the language of the 2nd Amendment in great detail.....and you ignore it, and lie about it....

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.
-----
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.
-----
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,
------

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):

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In re my time here as Wry Catcher,...

None of this changes the fact you are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence: "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To this day M14 shooter has remained the same dishonest creep and obsessed supporter of guns

Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic.

Bye-bye.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bye-bye.

Your surrender, accepted.