The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.

But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????

So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.

--LOL

Great post....... NOT!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.

But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????

So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.

--LOL

Great post....... NOT!

ditto

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia

then strip away their arms which is false

They can activate everyone, I didn't say at the same time. They can strip away their arms.

However this isn't the point. It gets very frustrating when someone picks up on a point that doesn't matter and completely ignores the main point that is being made.

yes your point does not matter

the right to owning a firearm is not connected to the militia

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.

Uh-huh.
Since it is clear you will only choose to be wrong and lie about established facts and proven points, it is clear I need waste no more time on you. Into the pit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

Children have limited rights.

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.

Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"

An interesting read:

Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?

Interesting but wrong, as the Constitution indeed applies to all persons, including those undocumented.


And there's a sound reason for this, consistent with our republican form of government, where we do not want bureaucrats, politicians, and simple majorities deciding who is or is not a citizen, or who will or will not be afforded his civil rights.


14th Amendment jurisprudence is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights, where our rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man:


“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.”


FindLaw Cases and Codes


Consequently, those undocumented are persons, human beings, possessing their inalienable rights as persons, which manifest once subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitled to the fundamental right of due process (see also Boumediene v. Bush (2008), reaffirming the due process rights of Guantanamo detainees).


By affording those undocumented their due process rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment, therefore, we in turn safeguard our civil liberties as citizens.


With regard to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as with all other rights they are inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (DC v. Heller (2008)), consequently felons and those mentally ill may be prohibited from possessing firearms, as well as those who are undocumented. But before the state restricts these rights each person is nonetheless entitled to due process to challenge the state's efforts to limit a right, where the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify its desire to do so.

 

[westwall]

Duel status?

Pistols at 10 paces?

Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?

Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.

Uh-huh.
Since it is clear you will only choose to be wrong and lie about established facts and proven points, it is clear I need waste no more time on you. Into the pit.

Clearly you have no desire to actually learn something here. What "established facts" are you talking about here? Because I don't really remember too many of those.

You have used one source and one source only.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

No such thing other than the FACT that this has been in existence for quite a while now.

In 1902 there was the Dick Act which made the National Guard as the organised militia, and the unorganised militia exists merely as a tool to make the US govt act constitutionally when it comes to "bear arms", because all people can be in the militia, but not all can be in the National Guard.

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420536 (this will download the document)

"The paper will offer three options. The first option is to eliminate the Guard’s state status by merging it into the Reserves. The second option is to maintain the status quo, continuing the National Guard’s dual status. Finally, the third and recommended option is to keep the dual status of the Guard, but to revise the law to allow the DOD to federalize the Guard more easily."

"The National Defense Act of 1916 reorganized the military, federalized the Organized Militia (now called the National Guard), and created the Reserves."

"National Guard members were now required to take two oaths on joining, one to the state and one to the federal
government."

By the way, this is written by Charles T. Huguelet, Lt Col Alaska Air National Guard
4 April 2002

I guess he might know if he has had to take two oaths, thereby having dual status with the feds and the state.

So when they are part of the state they are the organised militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.

The unorganized militia is not connected with the national guard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

No such thing other than the FACT that this has been in existence for quite a while now.

In 1902 there was the Dick Act which made the National Guard as the organised militia, and the unorganised militia exists merely as a tool to make the US govt act constitutionally when it comes to "bear arms", because all people can be in the militia, but not all can be in the National Guard.

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420536 (this will download the document)

"The paper will offer three options. The first option is to eliminate the Guard’s state status by merging it into the Reserves. The second option is to maintain the status quo, continuing the National Guard’s dual status. Finally, the third and recommended option is to keep the dual status of the Guard, but to revise the law to allow the DOD to federalize the Guard more easily."

"The National Defense Act of 1916 reorganized the military, federalized the Organized Militia (now called the National Guard), and created the Reserves."

"National Guard members were now required to take two oaths on joining, one to the state and one to the federal
government."

By the way, this is written by Charles T. Huguelet, Lt Col Alaska Air National Guard
4 April 2002

I guess he might know if he has had to take two oaths, thereby having dual status with the feds and the state.

So when they are part of the state they are the organised militia.

There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There's no such thing. Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia. The various National Guards ARE the US military. They are not militia at all.

Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.

Yes, the NG USED to be the state force that the feds could occasionally nationalize but that has changed, they are now for all intents and purposes a department of the Army.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.

Children have limited rights.

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.

Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"

An interesting read:

Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?

Interesting but wrong, as the Constitution indeed applies to all persons, including those undocumented.


And there's a sound reason for this, consistent with our republican form of government, where we do not want bureaucrats, politicians, and simple majorities deciding who is or is not a citizen, or who will or will not be afforded his civil rights.


14th Amendment jurisprudence is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights, where our rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man:


“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.”


FindLaw Cases and Codes


Consequently, those undocumented are persons, human beings, possessing their inalienable rights as persons, which manifest once subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitled to the fundamental right of due process (see also Boumediene v. Bush (2008), reaffirming the due process rights of Guantanamo detainees).


By affording those undocumented their due process rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment, therefore, we in turn safeguard our civil liberties as citizens.


With regard to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as with all other rights they are inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (DC v. Heller (2008)), consequently felons and those mentally ill may be prohibited from possessing firearms, as well as those who are undocumented. But before the state restricts these rights each person is nonetheless entitled to due process to challenge the state's efforts to limit a right, where the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify its desire to do so.

inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.

Yes, a very convenient thing to stop people demanding to be in the militia, because it's the right of people to be in the militia (bear arms), so the US govt simply made people, with the Dick Act, be a part of it, without doing anything other than saying "you're a part of it" and then "but you're not part of the National Guard, haha, unless we let you in".

 

[frigidweirdo]

inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.

Well, the govt CAN infringe on them, and does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.

Well, the govt CAN infringe on them, and does.

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.

Yes, a very convenient thing to stop people demanding to be in the militia, because it's the right of people to be in the militia (bear arms), so the US govt simply made people, with the Dick Act, be a part of it, without doing anything other than saying "you're a part of it" and then "but you're not part of the National Guard, haha, unless we let you in".

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.

 

[regent]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.

Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.

You're wrong.

Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.

Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.