The Right To Bear Arms

[Quantum Windbag]

If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?

I gave you a literal interpretation and you still questioned that!

You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.

Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.

Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.

No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.

What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.

Through the 14th amendment, which was the intent of same.

 

[regent]

Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.

Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.

No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.

What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.

No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.

 

[buckeye45_73]

yep the left thinks freedom and liberty are obsolete, we should all just live comunally and let the government tell us what to do......no thanks

 

[Billo_Really]

You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.

It's no secret one of the pro-gun club claims is that the 2nd amendment ensures liberty. Well, liberty from whom?

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

That's not what it says.

No one has claimed that any such law has been enacted, and so you have presented yet another strawman.

I didn't claim it either!

It was a rhetorical statement in reference to comments like Sharon Engle's solving problems with "2nd amendment rights". Which is a direct threat to elected officials.

Excellent work - keep it up. Peopel like you are why the anti-gun loons are losing the national debate.

I could care less about the 2nd amendment. I'm not a gun guy. I don't give a shit whether you have a gun or not. I just don't like people trying to bullshit me regarding the Constitution.

 

[Billo_Really]

You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.

I stated word for word what it said.

That is literal.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.

I stated word for word what it said.

That is literal.

by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...

 

[Billo_Really]

by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...

WTF are you talkin' about?

I didn't say it wasn't!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.

It's no secret one of the pro-gun club claims is that the 2nd amendment ensures liberty. Well, liberty from whom?

A I said:
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
Straw, man.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

That's not what it says.

Its still a fact.
You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...

WTF are you talkin' about?

I didn't say it wasn't!

The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks

 

[Billo_Really]

The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks

That's not what the Constitution says, shithead!

It clearly states what the 2nd amendment is for and it isn't your bullshit lie.

BTW, if the government wanted your little pea shooter, it'd take it and there's nothing you could do to stop them.

 

[Billo_Really]

A I said:
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
Straw, man.

Are you on crack?

They hold up these signs at protest rallys!





Never claimed such a thing, my ass.

Its still a fact.
You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.

You simply saying shit, does not make it a fact.

And there's nothing to ignore. The wording in the Constitution does not back you up.

 

[zonly1]

Why do most of AMERICA think the 2nd is for hunting as dumbass biden states?....Propaganda

Did we ever see the visual evidence of sandy hook?????

 

[Wildman]

The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.

Period.

We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.

So you are completely in favor of letting any citizen own any armament he or she feels necessary... Missile launchers, land mines, tactical nuclear weapons... Not to mention assault rifles and fully automatic weapons? do I have that right?

did you know they are one and the same ?

also if you libs want to amend or remove the Second.., we must also amend or remove the first amdt.

 

[regent]

One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government. We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A I said:
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
Straw, man.

Are you on crack?
They hold up these signs at protest rallys!

You picture simply proves my point, trhat no one has claimed what you stated.. Thank you.

Its still a fact.
You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.

You simply saying shit, does not make it a fact.

The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
You can disagree, but it just makes you wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government. We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.

All of this is written in total obliviousness to the fact that the people who founded this country did so while exercising their right to rebel against tyranny.
"When in the course of human events..."

 

[regent]

One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government. We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.

All of this is written in total obliviousness to the fact that the people who founded this country did so while exercising their right to rebel against tyranny.
"When in the course of human events..."

The Declaration was simply a form of propaganda to convince others that we had reason for our actions. In the end it took a war, some allies and some years to achieve that independence. Most rebellions against governments label the government as tyrannical how many nations today are involved in a war where the government is accused of tyranny? In the end, however, it is usually the side with the most power that decides.

 

[Billo_Really]

You picture simply proves my point, trhat no one has claimed what you stated.. Thank you.

It doesn't prove your point. It imply's the 2nd amendment is for the protection of liberty. Well, protection from whom? Who are you protecting liberty against? The government? And how does that protection manifest itself in regards to the 2nd amendment? By shooting government officials, that's how.

But you wanna play these fuckin' semantical word games, so here's a quote for you.

“The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”
- Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano

It shows a lack of integrity when you can't even admit the obvious.

The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
You can disagree, but it just makes you wrong.

That decision is the result of a politicized conservative SCOTUS that reversed 200 years of legal precedents and goes against what the Framers had intended.

The Second Amendment was enacted so each state would have the specific right to form “a well-regulated militia” to maintain “security,” i.e. to put down armed rebellions.

The Framers also made clear what they thought should happen to people who took up arms against the Republic. Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence,” and treason is defined in the Constitution as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3).

There is no ******* way the Framers would give you the right to individually protect your liberty against the Republic when they were dealing with shit like Shay's Rebellion at the time.