The Right To Bear Arms

[Si modo]

No, i don't think there's instant tyranny. But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
re supposed to be so damn fearful about.

What is tyranny? How does it manifest itself? What is there to fear?

As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.

So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun? Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?

Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.

 

[Lakhota]

"Militia" is the subject in the 2nd Amendment sentence. "Militia" is now the National Guard.

 

[Si modo]

"Militia" is the subject in the 2nd Amendment sentence. "Militia" is now the National Guard.

Wrong. So says the SCOTUS, THE authority to determine constitutionality.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is tyranny? By what actions will we recognize tyranny? What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?

 

[Nosmo King]

As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.

So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun? Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?

Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.

Again, I ask, what is tyranny? How will we know tyranny is being forced upon us? Has the state ever acted in a tyrannical manner towards its citizens here in the United States?

 

[BreezeWood]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What's so hard to understand?

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.


nothing can be understood when using only a part of an Article.

com·ma

/ˈkämə/
Noun

• A punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place...
• A minute interval or difference of pitch.

the com·ma distinguishes (M)ilitia - military weaponry // (A)rms - bowie knife hunting rifle

there is no determination of when to exercise or what the given right of the 'people' represents - as to legislative jurisdiction.

 

[Si modo]

What is tyranny? By what actions will we recognize tyranny? What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?

Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.

But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd. It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

DC vs Heller

 

[Lakhota]

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, “Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that ‘is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.’ The court agreed unanimously.”

There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com

The Case for Gun Control - TIME

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.

are we suppose to care?
my gawd

Chief Justice Burger means shit. He did not create the U.S. Constitution nor is he allowed to make law from the bench. Laws are made by the legislative branch, this asshole belonged to the judicial branch. Period.

Our founders made it very clear that the 2nd Amendment had no stipulation on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. That's why they said "the right to bear arms" and not "the right to bear muskets". Arms go way beyond guns. Arms dealers deal in RPG's, anti-tank technology, and a whole lot more. Of all of which our founders intended us to have to protect us from a tyrannical leader/government (a fear which, sadly, has come to be realized under the Obama regime).

As always Lahkota, you're completely misinformed on the facts and you're getting owned in the debate.

He couldn't anyway. Sorry you didn't get the memo but he's dead.

As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS.

In point of FACT, it is our Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional. That is the very definition of "constitutional".

Why don't rw's know that?

 

[Nosmo King]

What is tyranny? By what actions will we recognize tyranny? What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?

Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.

But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd. It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.

Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?

 

[Si modo]

What is tyranny? By what actions will we recognize tyranny? What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?

Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.

But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd. It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.

Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?

Yup. Japanese interment camps, for example. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is another example. And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.

But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.

 

[Si modo]

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, “Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that ‘is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.’ The court agreed unanimously.”

There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com

The Case for Gun Control - TIME

Pssst. Journalists have zero authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional. The SCOTUS does, and the SCOTUS says one cannot deprive an individual of the right to bear an arm.

 

[Nosmo King]

Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.

But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd. It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.

Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?

Yup. Japanese interment camps, for example. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is another example. And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.

But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.

Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny? If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny? If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny? Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical? And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for? Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?

 

[hortysir]

How can one feel truly safe and secure knowing that their nanny-state is more well armed than they?

When the black SUVs pull up in my yard, I'd like to have a fighting chance.


But, hey....that's just me

 

[Si modo]

Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?

Yup. Japanese interment camps, for example. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is another example. And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.

But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.

Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny? If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny? If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny? Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical? And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for? Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?

Yes. No. Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others. No, no, yes. Depends.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?

The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.

Correct, there is no ‘tyranny,’ it is indeed a partisan contrivance.

The notion that private citizens armed with weapons currently in common use will somehow stand up to the US military is idiocy.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. This is consequently an individual, not collective, right, where private citizens may possess firearms for protection of home and self.

As with all rights the right to own a gun is not absolute, it may be subject to reasonable restrictions where the state has demonstrated a compelling interest and a rational basis for regulation or restriction.

And as with all rights the right to own a gun does not require a person to justify the exercising of that right, he may not be compelled to explain why he wishes to own an AR 15 if that firearm is legal to own in his jurisdiction, as a prerequisite to indeed exercise his Second Amendment rights.

Unlike issues concerning abortion and same-sex couples’ access to marriage, there is currently little comprehensive case law as to what constitutes weapons ‘dangerous and unusual,’ which may be subject to restrictions, and weapons ‘in common use at the time,’ subject to Second Amendment protection.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yup. Japanese interment camps, for example. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is another example. And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.

But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.

Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny? If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny? If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny? Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical? And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for? Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?

Yes. No. Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others. No, no, yes. Depends.

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war? While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny. they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it. And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason. Like the Declaration of Independence. Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?

 

[Si modo]

So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?

The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.

Correct, there is no ‘tyranny,’ it is indeed a partisan contrivance.

The notion that private citizens armed with weapons currently in common use will somehow stand up to the US military is idiocy.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. This is consequently an individual, not collective, right, where private citizens may possess firearms for protection of home and self.

As with all rights the right to own a gun is not absolute, it may be subject to reasonable restrictions where the state has demonstrated a compelling interest and a rational basis for regulation or restriction.

And as with all rights the right to own a gun does not require a person to justify the exercising of that right, he may not be compelled to explain why he wishes to own an AR 15 if that firearm is legal to own in his jurisdiction, as a prerequisite to indeed exercise his Second Amendment rights.

Unlike issues concerning abortion and same-sex couples’ access to marriage, there is currently little comprehensive case law as to what constitutes weapons ‘dangerous and unusual,’ which may be subject to restrictions, and weapons ‘in common use at the time,’ subject to Second Amendment protection.

Alexander Hamilton was a partisan idiot?

Who knew?

 

[Si modo]

Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny? If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny? If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny? Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical? And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for? Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?

Yes. No. Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others. No, no, yes. Depends.

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war? While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny. they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it. And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason. Like the Declaration of Independence. Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.