The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

View attachment 645156

In fact, all the cannons used by the Continental Army, were privately owned.

 

[progressive hunter]

The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.

the states were also denied,,

 

[BS Filter]

View attachment 645144

Bogus. I doubt he said this. He most certainly wasn't a "conservative". Bogus.

 

[Rigby5]

the states were also denied,,

The federal Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have had the authority or jurisdiction to deny all state jurisdiction over firearms.
For example, what if states wanted to pass legislation preventing juveniles from being armed in public, making it illegal to carry a firearm in public that was loaded and cocked, or basic gun safety like that?

 

[progressive hunter]

The federal Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have had the authority or jurisdiction to deny all state jurisdiction over firearms.
For example, what if states wanted to pass legislation preventing juveniles from being armed in public, making it illegal to carry a firearm in public that was loaded and cocked, or basic gun safety like that?

you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,
you just keep making up crazy shit like this,,

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. He's correct. Study it.

I watched more video of Warren Burger saying the 2nd amendment is a fraud that should never have been in the Bill of Rights.
I am paraphrasing, but he said why shouldn't firearms be regulated, like for juveniles, the way we regulate cars now?



And the reason that really made Warren Burger sound ignorant is that he clearly misunderstood the use and meaning of the word "regulated", in the 2nd amendment.
A "well regulated militia" is not one that is carefully constricted by laws, but one that is well functioning, practiced, reliable, etc., as in a "well regulated clock".
Sorry, but Warren Burger in this interview, came off like a very ignorant person.
The founders clearly did not trust a mercenary military, wanted citizen soldiers instead, and wanted to ensure that the general population would not only be armed, but well practiced and ready to fight whenever it became necessary.
In no way did the Founders want only state militias to be armed. The Founders are on record saying they were considering making firearm ownership mandatory, so that everyone would be well practiced in the use of weapon when necessary.
Burger's modern and reverse interpretation of the word "regulated" makes we wonder if he ever read anything at all about Constitutional law?

 

[Rigby5]

you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,
you just keep making up crazy shit like this,,

Of course states could and did often violate the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
For example, slavery.

It took a Civil War to put states under the restrictions of individual rights.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course states could and did often violate the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
For example, slavery.

youre dodging a direct question,,,

I can only guess you know youre wrong but cant admit it,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I watched more video of Warren Burger saying the 2nd amendment is a fraud that should never have been in the Bill of Rights.
I am paraphrasing, but he said why shouldn't firearms be regulated, like for juveniles, the way we regulate cars now?



And the reason that really made Warren Burger sound ignorant is that he clearly misunderstood the use and meaning of the word "regulated", in the 2nd amendment.
A "well regulated militia" is not one that is carefully constricted by laws, but one that is well functioning, practiced, reliable, etc., as in a "well regulated clock".
Sorry, but Warren Burger in this interview, came off like a very ignorant person.
The founders clearly did not trust a mercenary military, wanted citizen soldiers instead, and wanted to ensure that the general population would not only be armed, but well practiced and ready to fight whenever it became necessary.
In no way did the Founders want only state militias to be armed. The Founders are on record saying they were considering making firearm ownership mandatory, so that everyone would be well practiced in the use of weapon when necessary.
Burger's modern and reverse interpretation of the word "regulated" makes we wonder if he ever read anything at all about Constitutional law?

you know good and well the well regulated militia part has nothing to do with the right to keep and bare arms since its specifically says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

 

[Rigby5]

youre dodging a direct question,,,

I can only guess you know youre wrong but cant admit it,,,

The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.

youre still dodging the question,,,

its a simple yes or no
can a state change/ignore the 5th A and jail or execute without due process??
or any other amendment??

 

[Rigby5]

you know good and well the well regulated militia part has nothing to do with the right to keep and bare arms since its specifically says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

The "well regulated militia" part does have something to do with "shall not be infringed".
To me, it clearly is saying that, "Because we need citizens soldiers good with arms, that the right of citizens to be well armed must not be interfered with."
From a purely legalistic basis they may have wanted no federal jurisdiction over firearms, but they clearly were also giving the pragmatic argument that there is a NEED for a well armed citizenry.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.

Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Rigby5]

youre still dodging the question,,,

its a simple yes or no
can a state change/ignore the 5th A and jail or execute without due process??
or any other amendment??

Yes state could and did, but no longer can, due to the 14th amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

The "well regulated militia" part does have something to do with "shall not be infringed".
To me, it clearly is saying that, "Because we need citizens soldiers good with arms, that the right of citizens to be well armed must not be interfered with."
From a purely legalistic basis they may have wanted no federal jurisdiction over firearms, but they clearly were also giving the pragmatic argument that there is a NEED for a well armed citizenry.

but you said the states can interfere with it??

whats the difference between feds and states?? thay are both government,,,

 

[Rigby5]

Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?

Nope, the intent of the Bill of Rights was all for the states.
For example:
{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4] ...}
That is totally restrictions on the federal government, and not anything about restriction on states.
There were several states at the time, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that did have established state religions.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes state could and did, but no longer can, due to the 14th amendment.

so that means they have no power over the 2nd A either,,,

your answer is NO they cant override the bill of rights and that includes the 2nd A

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, the intent of the Bill of Rights was all for the states.
For example:
{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4] ...}
That is totally restrictions on the federal government, and not anything about restriction on states.
There were several states at the time, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that did have established state religions.

my god youre an idiot,,,

 

[scruffy]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Listen up, stupid leftie.

Self defense is a NATURAL right.

In other words, I don't care about your laws, your amendments, or anything else.

I'm going to bear and carry with or without your approval.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about it

 

[Rigby5]

but you said the states can interfere with it??

whats the difference between feds and states?? thay are both government,,,

The difference is the states already existed and the federal government did not, so the Founders were trying to entice the states to join. The Bill of Rights was to be accepted by the states, not by the people.
There was not some big public referendum on whether or not to join.
It was entirely to be decided by the state legislatures.