The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.

The term of "Unorganized Militia" is a made up term by a bunch of people running around the woods hosting pickle suites while brandishing guns to make themselves seem more important than they really are. No Governor in their right mind would EVER call those fruitcakes up to defend a 7-11 much less a State against anything.

that is the problem. in a more perfect militia world; everyone knows their heavy weapons section.

And because of those heavy weapons is the reason that the militia cannot stand but an afternoon against a well equipped army in today's world. Your Militia would be so outgunned that it would be mowed down in the first wave. If your Militia is caught with those heavy weapons, here comes the Feds and the State with a vengeance.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

well regulated militia are declared necessary and have no need to complain about gun control laws, unlike the unorganized slackers.

Wrong and motherfucking stupid. Shut the **** up, Dan.

 

[P@triot]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

But being a member of the militia is not “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.

It is about who may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.

And it is the people who may not be infringed. You lose again.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.

Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.

lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sorry, but the argument has already been done. The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.

lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sorry, but the argument has already been done. The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

danny you are truly one dumb mother fcker

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Completely retarded and goes against the PLAIN text of the 2A.

That fails to give plain meaning to two separate and distinct terms: "People" and "Militia" and completely ignores the clear meaning of "well-regulated" while also conflating "organized" which appears NOWHERE in the 2A.

Give it up, Dan. You're not a lawyer and you didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

You have yet to provide a SINGLE STITCH of legal authority supporting this ridiculous conclusion.

You suck, Dan. Quit pretending to know what you're talking about.

.

 

[teddyearp]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.

lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sorry, but the argument has already been done. The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

 

[progressive hunter]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.

lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sorry, but the argument has already been done. The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE AND SMOKES BLOWING OUT YOUR ASS

or of course you can prove that by showing where in the constitution or 2nd amendment that it says that

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Completely retarded and goes against the PLAIN text of the 2A.

That fails to give plain meaning to two separate and distinct terms: "People" and "Militia" and completely ignores the clear meaning of "well-regulated" while also conflating "organized" which appears NOWHERE in the 2A.

Give it up, Dan. You're not a lawyer and you didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

You have yet to provide a SINGLE STITCH of legal authority supporting this ridiculous conclusion.

You suck, Dan. Quit pretending to know what you're talking about.

.

I notice you don't respond to me since I HAVE given more than a stitch of legal authority to my views. Pick on me for a change. You will find I am more interesting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come. Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets. I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head. There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt. There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go. They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter. Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.

 

[teddyearp]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come. Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets. I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head. There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt. There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go. They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter. Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.

If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment. Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put? Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use. There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails. Badly.

 

[teddyearp]

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.

Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it. Under something, for sure.

 

[danielpalos]

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.

lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sorry, but the argument has already been done. The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.

Judicial activism. There is no separating the People from the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized.

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.

danny you are truly one dumb mother fcker

anybody can Talk. you need a valid argument.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come. Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets. I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head. There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt. There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go. They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter. Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.

If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment. Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put? Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use. There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails. Badly.

The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward. As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.

One had a rotating barrel with multiple barrels. You loaded each barrel like any other musket of the day. You had one central "Rope" to fire each barrel as they came around. You had a lever that pulled the barrels forward, another lever that you rotated the barrels with and a central trigger. It's malfunction rate was high to say the least. You got about 6 rounds a minute. When you got finished and if the battle was still going on, you abandoned it since there was no way you could rearm it in the middle of a battle and live to tell about it. Meanwhile, the other side is using a 54 caliber black powder getting 5 shots per minute and reloading each time and will continue as long as he has the powder and shot. Pickle tried to sell it to the Navy but it was found that the little canon was much more effective, did more damage per shot and could do 3 rounds per minute with a good gunner as long as he had powder and shot.

There were other ones like the ones that you manually rotated the barrel. It worked until one of the cylinders would detonate and blow the whole thing up along with your fingers. later versions of that became the revolver shotguns and revolver rifles. They didn't last too long either.

These were what was available for future technology of the day. Evolutionary dead ends that stayed that way for at least a hundred years. We are now entering into something similar with the 3d printers where anyone with one can make a functional firearm from a plan. Luckily, the materials required haven't caught up with the process. But it's going to happen. When that happens, it will set a new idea of gun manufacture on it's ear. And we have no laws to cover that either. But today, we adjust out laws as we need to. You call it "Gun Regulation". But it there is gun regulation everywhere except for Yemen and you see how well that is working out for them.

You shouldn't be screaming "No Gun Regulations". Instead, you need to accept there is already some gun regulations everywhere. You should be working on how much is required. If you keep screaming your fight song, no one in power will bother to listen to you since it just will never happen.

 

[progressive hunter]

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.

What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come. Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets. I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head. There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt. There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go. They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter. Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.

If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment. Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put? Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use. There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails. Badly.

The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward. As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.

One had a rotating barrel with multiple barrels. You loaded each barrel like any other musket of the day. You had one central "Rope" to fire each barrel as they came around. You had a lever that pulled the barrels forward, another lever that you rotated the barrels with and a central trigger. It's malfunction rate was high to say the least. You got about 6 rounds a minute. When you got finished and if the battle was still going on, you abandoned it since there was no way you could rearm it in the middle of a battle and live to tell about it. Meanwhile, the other side is using a 54 caliber black powder getting 5 shots per minute and reloading each time and will continue as long as he has the powder and shot. Pickle tried to sell it to the Navy but it was found that the little canon was much more effective, did more damage per shot and could do 3 rounds per minute with a good gunner as long as he had powder and shot.

There were other ones like the ones that you manually rotated the barrel. It worked until one of the cylinders would detonate and blow the whole thing up along with your fingers. later versions of that became the revolver shotguns and revolver rifles. They didn't last too long either.

These were what was available for future technology of the day. Evolutionary dead ends that stayed that way for at least a hundred years. We are now entering into something similar with the 3d printers where anyone with one can make a functional firearm from a plan. Luckily, the materials required haven't caught up with the process. But it's going to happen. When that happens, it will set a new idea of gun manufacture on it's ear. And we have no laws to cover that either. But today, we adjust out laws as we need to. You call it "Gun Regulation". But it there is gun regulation everywhere except for Yemen and you see how well that is working out for them.

You shouldn't be screaming "No Gun Regulations". Instead, you need to accept there is already some gun regulations everywhere. You should be working on how much is required. If you keep screaming your fight song, no one in power will bother to listen to you since it just will never happen.

LIAR!!!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.

Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it. Under something, for sure.

Care to S'Plain where you get those rights from , Lucy? Did you get them from your God? Does that mean that Atheists don't have those same rights? Or if someone with the wrong God have different rights? Or are you talking about Morals and Ethics.

 

[progressive hunter]

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.

Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it. Under something, for sure.

Care to S'Plain where you get those rights from , Lucy? Did you get them from your God? Does that mean that Atheists don't have those same rights? Or if someone with the wrong God have different rights? Or are you talking about Morals and Ethics.

CRAZY AND A LIAR

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard. As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian. You can moan and ***** about it but it's the law. Get over it or under it. I don't care which.

Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.

Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it. Under something, for sure.

Ahh, the ignorance typical of most on the right who fail to understand the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts.

The Constitution is neither ‘static’ nor ‘living’ – ‘originalism’ is wrongheaded idiocy, and it was the intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

No right is ‘unlimited,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on those rights consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – where such restrictions and limitations in no manner ‘infringe’ on your right to possess a firearm.