The Right To Bear Arms

[Sallow]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

What exactly is "confusing" about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.

Sure is.
And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.

Unfortunately for you, 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..

Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.

But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.

Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.

Un 'abridged'.

 

[turtledude]

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.

yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A. and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point. Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

Who do you have on your side? Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh or Kates.

 

[turtledude]

No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.

You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.

Oh Look, I have a moron without a law degree calling me and others who actually understand this topic "dimwits"

where was the federal government ever given the proper power to intrude into this area

 

[M14 Shooter]

No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.

Only to those who choose to be, or cannot help but be, ignorant of the subject.

You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.

Says she who consistently argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[turtledude]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

What exactly is "confusing" about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.

Sure is.
And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.

Unfortunately for you, 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..

Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.

But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.

Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.

Un 'abridged'.

the people doing the slaughtering tend to be your fellow travelers dullard

not ours. "gun nuts" are not the ones committing crime

its mainly black thugs who vote for your heroes like Obama

and there is no support for the statist nonsense of Stevens who claimed the USSC should be bound by dishonest inferior court opinions that deliberately misconstrued the Cruikshank decision (which correctly held that the 2A did not CREATE a RKBA but merely recognized it-disonest turds on the bench said no right therefore exists and Stevens demanded that the supremes follow that idiocy)

 

[turtledude]

No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.

Only to those who choose to be, or cannot help but be, ignorant of the subject.

You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.

Says she who consistently argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Strong the stupidity is with that one Master Yoda

Seduced by the far left side of the force he has been Jedi M14

 

[Sallow]

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.

yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A. and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point. Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

Who do you have on your side? Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh or Kates.

Again,as I have pointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.

It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.

The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).

Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!

What exactly is "confusing" about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.

Sure is.
And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.

Unfortunately for you, 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..

Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.
But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.
Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.
Un 'abridged'.

A response deeply set in emotion, ignorance and or dishonesty.
As per the norm.

 

[turtledude]

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.

yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A. and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point. Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

Who do you have on your side? Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh or Kates.

Again,as I have appointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.

It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.

The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).

Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.

the Democrat party had to pretend that the 2A didn't guarantee an individual right because it was Dems-from the Klan leaders seeking to disarm blacks, to Dem politicians trying to counter the Nixon Southern Strategy in the 60s, who adopted gun control. Gun control first was a racist reaction to armed freemen: later it was a COVER OUR ASS strategy when Dems were being pummeled for being soft on violent black street crime.

the gun banners can never tell us why the federal government actually has a proper power to say decree magazine limits or machine gun bans given that the use of the commerce clause is so intellectually dishonest, the best its educated supporters can do is claim its "settled law" rather than arguing what FDR's pet monkeys on the court did was actually intellectually honest

 

[Sallow]

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.

yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A. and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point. Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

Who do you have on your side? Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh or Kates.

Again,as I have appointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.

It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.

The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).

Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.

the Democrat party had to pretend that the 2A didn't guarantee an individual right because it was Dems-from the Klan leaders seeking to disarm blacks, to Dem politicians trying to counter the Nixon Southern Strategy in the 60s, who adopted gun control. Gun control first was a racist reaction to armed freemen: later it was a COVER OUR ASS strategy when Dems were being pummeled for being soft on violent black street crime.

the gun banners can never tell us why the federal government actually has a proper power to say decree magazine limits or machine gun bans given that the use of the commerce clause is so intellectually dishonest, the best its educated supporters can do is claim its "settled law" rather than arguing what FDR's pet monkeys on the court did was actually intellectually honest

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Again,as I have pointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.

As you have claimed. You have never presented any proof of this claim, and you run away from every challenge to do so - and you know it.

It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.

The opinion in Heller extensively discusses this very thing - that "keep and bear arms" in no way has a necessary and indivisible connection to serving in defense of the state.
Specifically, how is it wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

Yes.
Who doesn't know that?

 

[turtledude]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

that was a state action not federal and it was wrong. Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?

 

[Sallow]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

Yes.
Who doesn't know that?

You don't.

As governor of California he ran as a Republican.

Things you learn..eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

Yes.
Who doesn't know that?

You don't.
As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
Things you learn..eh?

I laugh at you.

Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was Reagan a Democrat? The only sound answer is "yes".

Glad I could help you with your ignorance.

 

[Sallow]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

that was a state action not federal and it was wrong. Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?

You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.

Well..you were proved wrong.

And?

Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There ya go.

Thought you were a lawyer..or something.

 

[turtledude]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

that was a state action not federal and it was wrong. Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?

You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.

Well..you were proved wrong.

And?

Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There ya go.

Thought you were a lawyer..or something.

gee you are dishonest. The HUGHES amendment was DEMOCRAT sponsored and an attempt to derail the FOPA

I guess you weren't smart enough to comprehend that. Reagan signed the overall bill after being told by WH counsel that the Hughes derailment would be stripped out

and its the DEMS who passed gun control in the south to disarm blacks

Reagan's law in California did not strip anyone of arms-it was a use restriction

do you even have a HS education?

 

[Sallow]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

Yes.
Who doesn't know that?

You don't.
As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
Things you learn..eh?

I laugh at you.

Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was Reagan a Democrat? The only sound answer is "yes".

Glad I could help you with your ignorance.

You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.

Reagan was also the head of the Actor's Union for a while.

Reagan was neither friendly toward Unions..or elected to the governor's office or the Presidency as a Democrat.

Glad I could help here..since you didn't seem to know that.

 

[Sallow]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

that was a state action not federal and it was wrong. Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?

You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.

Well..you were proved wrong.

And?

Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There ya go.

Thought you were a lawyer..or something.

gee you are dishonest. The HUGHES amendment was DEMOCRAT sponsored and an attempt to derail the FOPA

I guess you weren't smart enough to comprehend that. Reagan signed the overall bill after being told by WH counsel that the Hughes derailment would be stripped out

and its the DEMS who passed gun control in the south to disarm blacks

Reagan's law in California did not strip anyone of arms-it was a use restriction

do you even have a HS education?

Do you even read your own posts?

You asked for a GOP sponsored "restriction". I bolded it for you.

The bill was brought up by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican President.

Where did you study law?

Did they teach you anything about civics?

Or how to read?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?

Yes.
Who doesn't know that?

You don't.
As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
Things you learn..eh?

I laugh at you.

Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was Reagan a Democrat? The only sound answer is "yes".

Glad I could help you with your ignorance.

You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.

Says she who didn't know that RWR was a Democrat and thought she had me when she triumphantly noted that he was elected in 1968 as a Republican.

I continue to laugh at you.