The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

you are the one with the inferior argument.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.

He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.

 

[danielpalos]

dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

.

yet, you allege I am the Troll.

 

[danielpalos]

show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby

This, from Darby:

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to those intrastate activities which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make their regulation an appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end -- the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. P. 118."

Is the effective END of constitutional government.

If the Interstate Commerce Clause means also intrastate commerce, it simply means ALL commerce.

Just like the Welfare Clause. If it means ANYTHING to promote the welfare of the people, it means FedGov has all power and authority, and is no longer limited.

Congrats on your constitutional overthrow, commie.


.

you have to understand the concepts well enough to quibble. we have a general welfare clause not a general malfare clause nor a general warfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

you are the one with the inferior argument.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.

even women can gossip.

 

[danielpalos]

you are the one with the inferior argument.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.

He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.

bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.

 

[hadit]

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.

He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.

bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.

I hear they're starting a new bowling league.

 

[Pilot1]

your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.

I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?

you are the one with the inferior argument.

Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.

Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.

Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.

He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.

bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.

I hear they're starting a new bowling league.

And a competitive, shooting team. Only White Guys allowed.

 

[ralfy]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

 

[danielpalos]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.

 

[Rigby5]

show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.

The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby

You misunderstand.
Clearly the Bill of Rights was produced solely for the purpose of getting states to be less fearful of federal powers, and therefore more likely to join the union.
So the Bill of Right is ONLY restrictions on federal authority, originally.

So then what does Incorporated mean in terms of rights after the Civil War?
Since the south was abusing freed slaves, the 14th amendment was needed, and it put the federal government into the awkward position of having to determine what individual rights should be that states should not violate. And while it did not simply say the Bill of Rights were then also applied to the states, it slowly started selectively incorporating some of the Bill of Rights as applying to states as well.
The SCOTUS theory for doing so was that if the federal government was barred from infringing, then the right must be pretty important. But not all articles of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. And the 2nd amendment was only very recently incorporated in 2010, just as you mentioned.

I disagree with your interpretation of US vs Darby.
That is not saying that the federal government is not limited to only what expressly authorized. All it is saying is that it was unfair to states which wanted quality working conditions, to use interstate commerce to bring in out of state merchandise that violated the working conditions of the state law. In effect the court was saying the imports were violating state law, and the 10th amendment does not prohibit federal regulation of interstate commerce in order to protect the rights of those in a state. Regulation of interstate commerce is an explicit authorization of the federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

 

[Rigby5]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.

BS. The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority. Nothing else.
If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
ONLY individuals have rights.
Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

 

[2aguy]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

How? With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois. There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it. All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%. But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes. Where did these extra guns come from? Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand. New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas. California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada. Colorado has the same problem with Kansas. But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem? One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about? Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through? Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons? Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place. What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back. They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down. They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders. The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit. It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check. Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level. And look for it to stand up in court as well. But lets say it doesn't. The Feds have ways to force a state to do something. Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance. If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce. It's going to happen. We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work. So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

How? With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?

It doesn't happen over night. It will take up to 10 years to get most of them. And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there. It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.

 

[ralfy]

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

You can have gun laws because rights may be abridged, i.e., limited for various reasons. That's why, for example, convicts don't have the right to bear arms.

For these laws to be passed, a majority vote is needed.

Also, the purpose of 2A is not to limit federal power but to enhance it. That's why what defines regulated militias is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and what makes them operational are the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory military service for male citizens.

There's no need to amend 2A to stop gun control. What you need to do is to convince more citizens to vote against it (i,e., gun control).

Finally, 2A is irrelevant because the gov't no longer needs regulated militias to supplement the army. Rather, it's been using the National Guard since 1903, and for citizens, conscription and the Selective Service System.

 

[ralfy]

The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.

The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.

Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.