CDZ The second amendment allows for multiple use under the keep and bear doctrine.

[justoffal]

If the second amendment was written in reverse with the keep and bear doctrine contingent upon the militia doctrine I could understand the wussy crying of Lefty. But it's not written that way.

Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they ..( the people).. are allowed to keep and bear arms. That in no way implies that the arms are limited to militia use.

Remember that a square is a rhombus but a rhombus is not a square.

Jo

 

[jwoodie]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

 

[justoffal]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

Yep....the phrase after the coma is a separate and distinct clause.

 

[progressive hunter]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

state governments were also prohibited,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

since you disagree tell me what other rights stated in the constitution can states ignore or change??

can the change the 4th A and search you or your house without a warrant??
what about the 5th?? can the states change due process and jail or execute without a trial??

 

[jwoodie]

state governments were also prohibited,,

The Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

of course it did,, just because some states chose to ignore it didnt mean it was legal or right,,

 

[jwoodie]

of course it did,, just because some states chose to ignore it didnt mean it was legal or right,,

Barron v. Baltimore (1838). SCOTUS confirmed that it did not apply to states. The 14th Amendment (1868) overturned this.

 

[progressive hunter]

Barron v. Baltimore (1838). SCOTUS ruled it did not apply to states. The 14th Amendment (1868) overturned this.

wouldnt be the first time they got something wrong and sure hasnt been the last,,

 

[Stryder50]

For consideration ...

What does the Second Amendment guarantee?​

EXCERPTS:
...
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “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.”

There are two significant competing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that it provides a collective right to states, not individuals, to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. In the 18th century, at the time of ratification, American states did not have standing armies, so when a military force was needed the state would call up the militia, which would be able-bodied local men bringing their weapons to an assembly point. Without individual ownership of a firearm, there could be no militia.
...
The alternative viewpoint is that the Second Amendment provides an individual right that is not limited by the requirement there be a well regulated militia. This view became the contemporary understanding of the Second Amendment after the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in D.C. v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the Court held a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. unconstitutional and declared for the first time that the “Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Interestingly, the Court in Heller did not reverse Miller, they simply distinguished it by noting that it was permissible to ban firearms that did not have a lawful purpose.

As the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal Government, there was some question about whether the Second Amendment limited the ability of states to regulate firearms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court decided that in the affirmative, with Justice Samuel Alito asserting that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against states as an element of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, the Court has recognized that this is not an unlimited right. In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Scalia also wrote in support of the ability of the government to prohibit “dangerous or unusual weapons.”
...

MSN

 

[2aguy]

If the second amendment was written in reverse with the keep and bear doctrine contingent upon the militia doctrine I could understand the wussy crying of Lefty. But it's not written that way.

Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they ..( the people).. are allowed to keep and bear arms. That in no way implies that the arms are limited to militia use.

Remember that a square is a rhombus but a rhombus is not a square.

Jo

This is the CDZ, you can't insult people here, even if they deserve it.

 

[2aguy]

Barron v. Baltimore (1838). SCOTUS confirmed that it did not apply to states. The 14th Amendment (1868) overturned this.

The Supreme Court also believed in Separate but Equal and that free states had to return escaped slaves..........

 

[2aguy]

For consideration ...

What does the Second Amendment guarantee?​

EXCERPTS:
...
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “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.”

There are two significant competing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that it provides a collective right to states, not individuals, to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. In the 18th century, at the time of ratification, American states did not have standing armies, so when a military force was needed the state would call up the militia, which would be able-bodied local men bringing their weapons to an assembly point. Without individual ownership of a firearm, there could be no militia.
...
The alternative viewpoint is that the Second Amendment provides an individual right that is not limited by the requirement there be a well regulated militia. This view became the contemporary understanding of the Second Amendment after the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in D.C. v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the Court held a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. unconstitutional and declared for the first time that the “Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Interestingly, the Court in Heller did not reverse Miller, they simply distinguished it by noting that it was permissible to ban firearms that did not have a lawful purpose.

As the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal Government, there was some question about whether the Second Amendment limited the ability of states to regulate firearms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court decided that in the affirmative, with Justice Samuel Alito asserting that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against states as an element of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, the Court has recognized that this is not an unlimited right. In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Scalia also wrote in support of the ability of the government to prohibit “dangerous or unusual weapons.”
...

MSN

And Scalia also wrote this.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


And he also wrote this...about the AR-15 rifle....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

You guys always seem to be unable to find those things he wrote...

 

[Stryder50]

My Ruger 10/22 is a "semi-auto" rifle, which comes with a ten round magazine as stock equipment.
What many of the anti-gun crowd, most of whom have little to no real experience or knowledge of firearms fail to grasp is how many handguns and rifles are "semi-automatic". Nor do they understand the meaning of that term and often use "automatic" in place of, though both are distinct and different technologies/concepts.

Ruger® 10/22® Autoloading Rifle

www.ruger.com

BTW, the 0.22 cal. round is rather small as a bullet goes and the propellant/powder behind is rather small also.

(Carbine model with a scope.)

 

[jwoodie]

The Supreme Court also believed in Separate but Equal and that free states had to return escaped slaves..........

The Separate but Equal decision is not a good comparison to the Second Amendment, which only applied to the establishment of the federal government. This decision was simply bad law that was reversed by the Supreme Court itself.

The return of escaped slaves is a better comparison in that it reflected established law at that time. Both required Constitutional Amendments (13th and 14th) to change those laws.

 

[flan327]

I prefer the original text:

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.

This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.

We DON’T

 

[progressive hunter]

We DON’T

get over it,,

 

[flan327]

get over it,,

,,,,,,,

No

 

[progressive hunter]

,,,,,,,

No

life must be tough for you,,

 

[Open Bolt]

We DON’T

Many on the left do, unfortunately.