The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.

Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?

You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?

 

[hadit]

Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.

The State not Individuals of the People.

That's not what it says. You're just making that up.

Yes, it is. You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.

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.

Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.

 

[hadit]

You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.

>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

= Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​

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

= The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​

That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view. If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary". Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.

Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

 

[hadit]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

Oh, he was there years ago.

 

[Lesh]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,

Yup

the right itself is independent of a militia.

Nope

 

[hadit]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,

Yup

the right itself is independent of a militia.

Nope

Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.

 

[hadit]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

Oh, he was there years ago.

Yup. He's nearing the end of this current cycle, however, when he goes off into even more incoherence then usual and disappears for a while.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

Oh, he was there years ago.

Yup. He's nearing the end of this current cycle, however, when he goes off into even more incoherence then usual and disappears for a while.

I put him on ignore so long ago. He doesn't care about reality. He's just here to entertain himself.

 

[justinacolmena]

Assault is an act therefore bats are assault weapons, fists are assault weapons, Cars are assault weapons, rocks are assault weapons any objected can be called an assault weapon

Classifying a weapon as an "assault weapon" should not have any effect on its legality. WE THE PEOPLE need the weapons to defend our homes against armed assault.

 

[Markle]

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?

they all use the same method to fire

Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.

 

[justinacolmena]

Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.

So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.

Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.

They did not know what "big government" is. They may have warned against expanded government, because they could not compose the constitution for a robust government, because they did not have the complete information. They only knew to warn against tyranny.

 

[Markle]

Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.

So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?

That's what makes describing an assault weapon impossible.

 

[Lesh]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,

Yup

the right itself is independent of a militia.

Nope

Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.

It did. A Right Wing Court threw out stare decisis and declared that the the "militia clause" wasn't even there.

Oddly it is and another court is just as likely to rule that way

 

[Lesh]

So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?

Nope. A semi auto magazine fed long gun is however

That's what makes describing an assault weapon impossible.

Not really

 

[Lesh]

Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.

Nope. The revolver is a double action weapon. The shotgun is not detachable mag. The other handgun is not gas operated and is of course not a long gun.

Stop exposing your ignoirance

 

[hadit]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,

Yup

the right itself is independent of a militia.

Nope

Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.

It did. A Right Wing Court threw out stare decisis and declared that the the "militia clause" wasn't even there.

Oddly it is and another court is just as likely to rule that way

The court hasn't been "right wing" for a long time. You disagreeing with one of their decisions does not make them so.

 

[hadit]

Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.

Nope. The revolver is a double action weapon. The shotgun is not detachable mag. The other handgun is not gas operated and is of course not a long gun.

Stop exposing your ignoirance

You do realize though, that the majority of gun deaths are due to hand guns and banning "assault" (another term for big and black) rifles will do little to reduce the number of deaths?