The Right To Bear Arms

[kaz]

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?

You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.

What an irrational response

 

[Concerned American]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government. But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point

I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.

You should study the history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.

More just empty rhetoric.

LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment." Greedy socialist

You are a fool.

It is obvious that you are looking in the mirror.

 

[JusticeHammer]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

 

[JusticeHammer]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

Funny. I'm 74. I've already served my time in the military. The "official" military.

Call you radar.

 

[kaz]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

Funny. I'm 74. I've already served my time in the military. The "official" military.

Cool. What country?

 

[9thIDdoc]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?

You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.

And maybe they did. Can you prove otherwise? Also beside the point.

 

[asaratis]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

I try to maintain a posture of not conversing with full of shit idiots.

 

[danielpalos]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

We have a Tenth Amendment. Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.

 

[danielpalos]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

 

[Lakhota]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

 

[danielpalos]

Should they consider automating that process to help expedite the process?

 

[WinterBorn]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

 

[hadit]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

We have a Tenth Amendment. Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.

They didn't rewrite the law, did they?

 

[danielpalos]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

We have a Tenth Amendment. Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.

They didn't rewrite the law, did they?

They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.

 

[hadit]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

Daniel clearly understands the law and the Constitution far better than do the Justices on the Supreme Court. They have, what, a few centuries of study and adjudications between them compared to his towering intellect that discovers whatever he wants to invent in the plain text of laws that say the exact opposite. He's quite the legal scholar, you know.

 

[hadit]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

We have a Tenth Amendment. Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.

They didn't rewrite the law, did they?

They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.

All they can do is strike down a law or allow it to stand. They cannot rewrite it. And again, why aren't you on the Supreme Court, since you know better than all of them put together?

 

[hadit]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.

 

[Lesh]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.

The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.

It has not. Cite the cases

 

[Lesh]

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!

Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.

I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.

You're also white

 

[Lesh]

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags.

As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.

And cops know that.