wow -- former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says: Repeal the Second Amendment

[EGR one]

The second amendment wasn't written to arm the militias, it was written to arm the people, in case a militia was needed to be formed.

While I agree that the purpose was to make sure people were armed, the intent was to limit Congressional power. Nothing more. It did nothing but tie the hands of Congress. No grant of rights. No arming the people. It did nothing in the affirmative. It is a prohibition.

The second amendment did not authorize the people to be armed, because they were already armed. It recognized that the people had a right to be armed, and that right should not be infringed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The second amendment did not authorize the people to be armed, because they were already armed. It recognized that the people had a right to be armed, and that right should not be infringed.

...by Congress.

Which means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional as that power was specifically prohibited to Congress by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[EGR one]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Could you please tell me what a semi-automatic is? This is what they want banned. So, please let me know what they are wanting to ban.

A gun (handgun or rifle) that reloads another round automatically after the existing round has been fired.

 

[Papageorgio]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Could you please tell me what a semi-automatic is? This is what they want banned. So, please let me know what they are wanting to ban.

A gun (handgun or rifle) that reloads another round automatically after the existing round has been fired.

Isn’t that most handguns?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Isn’t that most handguns?

It's about 70% of all civilian guns. But, no. They don't want a total ban. Just anything short of a muzzle loader.

 

[EGR one]

The second amendment did not authorize the people to be armed, because they were already armed. It recognized that the people had a right to be armed, and that right should not be infringed.

...by Congress.

Which means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional as that power was specifically prohibited to Congress by the 2nd Amendment.

If the government can state a compelling need to limit a right, and if the limitation is the only possible solution, and the limitation is the least restrictive solution, then it can limit a constitutional right

 

[EGR one]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Could you please tell me what a semi-automatic is? This is what they want banned. So, please let me know what they are wanting to ban.

A gun (handgun or rifle) that reloads another round automatically after the existing round has been fired.

Isn’t that most handguns?

Everything but revolvers, and single shot pistols.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the government can state a compelling need to limit a right, and if the limitation is the only possible solution, and the limitation is the least restrictive solution, then it can limit a constitutional right

Which government? State or Federal?
Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th, or the Privileges and Immunities Clause?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Everything but revolvers, and single shot pistols.

That's a big fat no. Heller could be used to shoot that down.

 

[Papageorgio]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Could you please tell me what a semi-automatic is? This is what they want banned. So, please let me know what they are wanting to ban.

A gun (handgun or rifle) that reloads another round automatically after the existing round has been fired.

Isn’t that most handguns?

Everything but revolvers, and single shot pistols.

So the left has lied to us and really want to ban guns?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So the left has lied to us and really want to ban guns?

Correct.

Communist revolution and what not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, the guns are coming for you......

Good thing we have the right to carry and shoot back....most of the time.

Good thing? Serious question: Do you go to bed at night and dream you've killed a 'bad' guy and are called a hero?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Judge Stevens knows that it’s a lot easier to roundup people and put them on trains if they are not armed

Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Define the militia at the time the amendment was passed.

The best way to understand the Militia in the mid to late 18th century is to read biographies of our founders. Chief Justice John Marshall was a Cap't in the Militia who recruited farmers and shop keepers and regularly trained them.

See in the linked, the table of contents the number of our founders and signers of COTUS here:

Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution

The seem to put in question Scalia's argument in Heller that the 2nd A. was not in any manner related to membership in the militia.

. You said recruited farmers and shop keepers, and then he trained them. Well this day and age we are already trained up, so no training is nessesary.

Sure you are. Have you seen the Elephant?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Good thing? Serious question: Do you go to bed at night and dream you've killed a 'bad' guy and are called a hero?

No. Should I?

You think I take pleasure in killing or harming others?

Is this some attempt to macho-shame me?

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applies at the time it was ratified and one that could apply now. The original version does NOT apply now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the guns are coming for you......

Good thing we have the right to carry and shoot back....most of the time.

Yep, good thing the police carry guns, it acts a shield against the bad guys.

Which is why 140 something police officers die a year in the line of duty compared to about 1 or 0 in the UK.... it's the shield that duz it you know.

 

[bripat9643]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Define the militia at the time the amendment was passed.

The best way to understand the Militia in the mid to late 18th century is to read biographies of our founders. Chief Justice John Marshall was a Cap't in the Militia who recruited farmers and shop keepers and regularly trained them.

See in the linked, the table of contents the number of our founders and signers of COTUS here:

Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution

The seem to put in question Scalia's argument in Heller that the 2nd A. was not in any manner related to membership in the militia.

John Marshal wasn't a Founding Father, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Could you please tell me what a semi-automatic is? This is what they want banned. So, please let me know what they are wanting to ban.

A gun (handgun or rifle) that reloads another round automatically after the existing round has been fired.

Isn’t that most handguns?

Yes, but not revolvers.

 

[emilynghiem]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Dear basquebromance
Dear Lord or Dear both:
Just because the 2nd Amendment specifically enforces the right to bear arms doesn't give anyone free license to abuse that to violate other rights or laws! Read the REST of the Bill of Rights which equally protects the right to security and not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process to prove that person committed a crime first. All 10 amendments were added together, and no rights shall supercede or disparage others.

I guess the problem is some ppl understand and interpret the rights as equal responsibilities of people as the govt to respect. But others do not. If you keep separating people as powerless to govt, then these rights and laws do not mean or speak the same things to you as they do to ppl who interpret people to be the authority of govt which reflects us not dictate to us. The people are the govt so these rights are our responsibility. None can be taken out of context and out of balance to violate other rights or laws that are equally included in the law.