Why Allow Gun Ownership?

[eagle1462010]

Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.

No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.

And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.

BS it always been your sides agenda.

 

[Ringtone]

Do you ever say anything that is true? I’ve yet to see it. You are a either a huge fool, or you’re just as evil and corrupt as the slimy traitorous crooks you defend day in and day out. Not sure which.

Just so, buttercup. He knows the law. As one who is also learned in the reading of case law, which I studied when I wrote my book on citizenship and nationality law several years ago, I recognize the pattern of his deceit. It's too subtle, too crafty, to be accidental.

Think about the psychology of those who would do that.

 

[Circe]

The Brits have been killing each other off in wholesale lots for a while.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

Some Canadian said yesterday here that they never had massacres in Canada ---- I guess you read today of police in Toronto killing a young man carrying three guns toward a school. People called it in and he showed fight when police arrived, and now he is no more ------- think of that! Canadians not being "nice"!

 

[Circe]

Do you ever say anything that is true? I’ve yet to see it. You are a either a huge fool, or you’re just as evil and corrupt as the slimy traitorous crooks you defend day in and day out. Not sure which.

Yeah ------- I think I see what is going on here.

They make a huge push after every splashy massacre because that HAS worked in a number of countries: Britain, Scotland, Australia, and Japan --- they immediately grabbed all guns after a big child-massacre by a crazy. Probably other countries, too, but I mainly know about these.

They are hoping this will work here.

I don't think it will, though. Too many of us know that we'll be sitting ducks to all the well-armed criminals to just take whatever they want anytime, as they do in Britain, and the police do nothing about it.

 

[Polishprince]

1. Hunting

2. Target practice

3. Self defense

Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.

2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy

3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.

A shotgun is a stupid weapon for concealed carry or even open carry on the street.

A weapon needed for self-defense is really dependent on what risks the individual faces. It really varies. I was watching the documentary "John Wick" last week. Mr. Wick had a dozen home invaders entering his domicile.

In some cities like Chicago, its like a war zone outside. You'd be a damn fool to go outside with proper armaments .

 

[BlindBoo]

The thrust of his claim is that the Militia is a creature of Congress.

Well one could say that the old Militia's was conscripted when Congress created the New Militias organized under the new Constitution and a new chain of command. Doesn't mean they started from scratch. But still was not intended to be check against the tyranny of the government freely elected by the people.

Not that Congress created them.

Colonial militias had existed for a long while.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well one could say that the old Militia's was conscripted when Congress created the New Militias organized under the new Constitution and a new chain of command. Doesn't mean they started from scratch. But still was not intended to be check against the tyranny of the government freely elected by the people.

Not that Congress created them.

Colonial militias had existed for a long while.

The Founding Generation did not amend the Constitution a authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

And although some Framers of the Constitution considered the possibility of opposing Federal tyranny, they foresaw such an action conducted by the state militia sanctioned and regulated by the states, not armed private citizens.

Last, insurrectionist dogma is authorized by neither the Second Amendment nor its subsequent case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly wrong.

[1] The thrust of his claim is that the Militia is a creature of Congress. Bullshit! You know that's not true.

Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller), Page 23​

​

[2] Whether the Second Amendment entailed a collective or an individual right, it would be about defending/securing against tyranny. But, of course, you're a lying ass dog. It's an individual right, and always has been just like the Court unanimously observed in Heller. The 5-to-4 split in the decision was over the issue of regulation, not over the nature of the right. Obviously, if the right were not individually enforceable, the collective right of the Militia would be meaningless and unenforceable against the federal government given that the militias are subject to congressional control as "employed in the Service of the United States" for the purpose of national defense.

The Court held in Heller:

1. 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.​

​

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.​

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.​

​

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.​

​

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.​

​

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.​

​

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. ​

Be sure to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph in bold. Ain't that a daisy? Let's replay part of that again:

None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's [individual-rights] interpretation. ​

The Court has never held it to be a mere collective right per the Militia.

Also see: Supreme Court Gun-Ban Ruling Buries "Collective Rights" Theory - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Wrong.

The militia were the creation of the states – authorized and regulated by the states.

The Second Amendment safeguarded the right of the states to create and regulate their militia absent interference from the Federal government, as the Second Amendment restricted solely acts of Congress.

Free form Federal interference, the states were at liberty to regulate both firearms and their militia as they saw fit.

It was the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment recognize a collective – not individual – right in its function to protect the autonomy of the states and their respective militia.

 

[Lesh]

A shotgun is a stupid weapon for concealed carry or even open carry on the street.

A weapon needed for self-defense is really dependent on what risks the individual faces. It really varies. I was watching the documentary "John Wick" last week. Mr. Wick had a dozen home invaders entering his domicile.

In some cities like Chicago, its like a war zone outside. You'd be a damn fool to go outside with proper armaments .

Excellent for home defense though

And an assault rifle is good for neither

Also we don't need armed citizens walking around looking for someone to shoot.

 

[Lesh]

Easily manipulated fools like Lesh go back and forth between parroting the line that AR-15s are useless against anyone more powerful than an average crackhead, and claiming they are "weapons of mass destruction" that should only be in the hands of the military elites.

LOL

Never said that you lying sack of excrement

 

[Polishprince]

Also we don't need armed citizens walking around looking for someone to shoot.

No we don't.

But we do need to have armed citizens prepared to defend themselves if they are attacked if they are out in public.

I would hate to be in a situation where a thug pulled a gun or a switchblade, or some other weapon on me and I was unprepared and would just have to take the stabbing, slashing, shooting or whatever from them with no way to defend myself outside of my own hands.

 

[Lesh]

But we do need to have armed citizens prepared to defend themselves if they are attacked if they are out in public.

We don't need armed citizens walking around looking for someone to shoot.

There is more danger from armed road ragers or just plain armed drunks than from muggers.

I have walked this planet for 68 years...spent lots of time in Newark and NYC and never once needed a gun to defend myself.

Nor do I even know anyone who did

In fact part of why cops are so trigger happy is that they assume everyone they encounter is armed. It wasn't always like that

 

[JusticeHammer]

The Founding Generation did not amend the Constitution a authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

And although some Framers of the Constitution considered the possibility of opposing Federal tyranny, they foresaw such an action conducted by the state militia sanctioned and regulated by the states, not armed private citizens.

Last, insurrectionist dogma is authorized by neither the Second Amendment nor its subsequent case law.

The second amendment doesn't support your bullshit position. Stop lying, fake lawyer.

 

[JusticeHammer]

We don't need armed citizens walking around looking for someone to shoot.

There is more danger from armed road ragers or just plain armed drunks than from muggers.

I have walked this planet for 68 years...spent lots of time in Newark and NYC and never once needed a gun to defend myself.

Nor do I even know anyone who did

In fact part of why cops are so trigger happy is that they assume everyone they encounter is armed. It wasn't always like that

Idiot

 

[Polishprince]

We don't need armed citizens walking around looking for someone to shoot.

There is more danger from armed road ragers or just plain armed drunks than from muggers.

I have walked this planet for 68 years...spent lots of time in Newark and NYC and never once needed a gun to defend myself.

Nor do I even know anyone who did

In fact part of why cops are so trigger happy is that they assume everyone they encounter is armed. It wasn't always like that

So if I walk through the ghetto with a roll of cash, you don't think anyone will try and take it from me? And if someone comes up to me with a gun or knife, if I tell them sternly to "**** off" they'll walk away and not try to take it from me?

Interesting point of view.

 

[Ringtone]

Exactly.

Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the state's, safeguarding the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including regulating state militia.

The Second Amendment was a collective, not individual, right having nothing to do with defending against tyranny.

Also, don't think you got away with this crap either. You write:

Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the state's, safeguarding the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including regulating state militia.​

Of course, we both know what you're up to there. The Second Amendment was never meant to permit the several states to regulate firearms against the people as they bloody damn well pleased. Sans due process in the case of criminality and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the several states never had any legitimate right to deprive any one of the people to keep and bear the general arms of the militia. It was the historical practice and understanding that the Second applied to the states as well.

Notwithstanding, in the latter part of the 20th Century, blue states and municipalities began to encroach on the right in ways that would never be tolerated by the people in most of the other states.

Technically, all that McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) did was formally specify in case law what had been formally established no later than 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against state and local governments.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

1. Hunting

2. Target practice

3. Self defense

Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.

2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy

3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.

Who said we were defending our home against burglars?




Look at Ukraine, firearms in the hands of citizens are helping to stop the Russian invasion. THAT is why we need guns.

 

[Ringtone]

Wrong.

The militia were the creation of the states – authorized and regulated by the states.

The Second Amendment safeguarded the right of the states to create and regulate their militia absent interference from the Federal government, as the Second Amendment restricted solely acts of Congress.

Free form Federal interference, the states were at liberty to regulate both firearms and their militia as they saw fit.

It was the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment recognize a collective – not individual – right in its function to protect the autonomy of the states and their respective militia.

You're dissembling again!

I never said the militias were not creatures of the states.

I proved beyond any question that the militias are not creatures of Congress as Blindboo stupidly claimed, not once but twice!

Pay attention. You just affirmed by point, dummy!

As the Court observed:

Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller), Page 23.​

​

You foolishly write as if I wouldn't bust your ass again:

The Second Amendment safeguarded the right of the states to create and regulate their militia absent interference from the Federal government, as the Second Amendment restricted solely acts of Congress.​

​

Free form Federal interference, the states were at liberty to regulate both firearms and their militia as they saw fit.​

Horseshit! The Militia does not have absolute autonomy when called up in the service of the United States for the purpose of national defense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.​

 

[Ringtone]

Wrong.

The militia were the creation of the states – authorized and regulated by the states.

The Second Amendment safeguarded the right of the states to create and regulate their militia absent interference from the Federal government, as the Second Amendment restricted solely acts of Congress.

Free form Federal interference, the states were at liberty to regulate both firearms and their militia as they saw fit.

It was the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment recognize a collective – not individual – right in its function to protect the autonomy of the states and their respective militia.

You write:

It was the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment recognize a collective – not individual – right in its function to protect the autonomy of the states and their respective militia.​

You and I might be in agreement here, depending on what you mean by not [an] individual right.

If you mean that the Framers intended to establish a collective right of the states vis-a-vis the general autonomy of their respective militias when not employed in the Service of the United States. Okay. But your verbiage for that idea is rather clumsy, isn't it?

If you mean that the intent was not to enforce a foundationally individual right, I say bullshit, and I've already falsified that bullshit!

Let me do it again.

The Court held in Heller:

​

1. 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.​

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.​

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.​

​

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.​

​

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.​

​

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.​

​

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. ​

Be sure to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph in bold. Ain't that a daisy? Let's replay part of that again:

None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's [individual-rights] interpretation. ​

The Court has never held it to be a mere collective right per the Militia.

Also see: Supreme Court Gun-Ban Ruling Buries "Collective Rights" Theory - Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

[Circe]

Why allow gun ownership?

Because they can't stop it.

Otherwise, they would, of course.

Keep it impossible, guys, or we'll all be slaughtered by the criminals and rioters. You know the police are no good: look at Uvalde.