The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment only expresses that well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

Then, why does it say "the right of the People...shall not be infringed"?

Otherwise, they could have said the right of the militia shall not be infringed.

well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[Lesh]

The decision on abortion was the precedent.

So Roe set the precedent. OK...and how can it break its own precedent?

It seems to me the Miller decision that attempted to make the second a collective right was really nothing but an attempt to make sawed off shotguns illegal to own because they had no military value.

Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause...as was Cruikshank

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Try to keep up OK?

It puts an age limit and sex on the right (17-45 males only) and removes the "well regulated" part

That is a stupid argument.

The right of the people...not the militia.

Nothing about the Dick act makes the RIGHT go away.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause.

Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.

 

[Lesh]

Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.

There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.

Heller threw that precedent out the window.

And no...you don't get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.

 

[Blues Man]

The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.

The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean

So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.

Surrender accepted

Abortion was illegal prior to Roe V wade now it is not

Interpretation of the constitution allowed the right to privacy

The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to mean an individual can own firearms.

The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms

 

[danielpalos]

Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause.

Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

 

[Blues Man]

Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.

There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.

Heller threw that precedent out the window.

And no...you don;t get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.

no it didn't

because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use

 

[Lesh]

That is a stupid argument.

The right of the people...not the militia.

Nothing about the Dick act makes the RIGHT go away.

Again...unless and until the Dick Act is repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it removes "well regulated" from the militia (essentially negating the 2A) and puts an age limit on the UNORGANIZED militia

 

[Lesh]

no it didn't

because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use

Jesus...Cruikshank predated Miller by more than 40 years

 

[danielpalos]

The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.

The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean

So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.

Surrender accepted

Abortion was illegal prior to Roe V wade now it is not

Interpretation of the constitution allowed the right to privacy

The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to mean an individual can own firearms.

The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms

how about this;

Our welfare clause is General.

We have a Commerce Clause.

And, we have a federal doctrine regarding the concept of employment at will.

We also have State laws regarding the same concept.

We could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment;

through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Then, we can fix the minimum wage to any amount that should be necessary and proper in modern capital times.

 

[danielpalos]

Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.

There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.

Heller threw that precedent out the window.

And no...you don;t get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.

no it didn't

because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use

Who's fault is it that gun lovers cannot convince their own representatives to government they cannot be careful with their Arms?

 

[Lesh]

The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms

Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.

It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored

 

[Blues Man]

no it didn't

because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use

Jesus...Cruikshank predated Miller by more than 40 years

And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so

Just as many other Scotus decisions have been overturned

For example Plessy v Ferguson was overruled by Brown v The Board of education ending separate but equal

But you have no problem with that do you?

 

[Blues Man]

The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms

Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.

It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored

All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts

 

[Lesh]

All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts

So precedent means nothing.

Oh..

 

[Lesh]

And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so

All you are saying is that Scalia was a hypocrite and a political animal legislating from the bench.

He made his reputation as an "originalist".

Well obviously that was a lie huh?

 

[Blues Man]

All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts

So precedent means nothing.

Oh..

They mean something but they are not always sacrosanct are they?

Seems to me you only support changes in SCOTUS rulings if you agree with them

 

[Blues Man]

And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so

All you are saying is that Scalia was a hypocrite and a political animal legislating from the bench.

He made his reputation as an "originalist".

Well obviously that was a lie huh?

I didn't mention scalia at all

you must have me confused with someone else

 

[Lesh]

Seems to me you only support changes in SCOTUS rulings if you agree with them

Really. Name the ones you are referring to.