Visualizing gun deaths – Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Bingo.

 

Not really. Most of them had pretty low opinions of the 'rabble' below them in status. Appealing to 'The Founders' as authorities doesn't go anywhere, because 'The Founders' had a variety of opinions, and it's easy to run around cherrypicking their writings to justify nearly anything. The Supreme Court over the years is no better; what they claim is 'constitutional' or legal isn't based on objectivity either, since they are appointed by political factions and their majority rulings change depending on which gang of hacks got to appoint the majority to their seats on the Court. When you see somebody invoking 'constitutional law' and SC rulings, the correct response is snickering.

 

Hmm.., I notice you didn't include Pakistan. Why is that?

 

actually you are slightly wrong

the 2A doesn't GRANT a right it recognizes a right ALL of the founders assumed existed before the creation of the constitution.

 

I believe you are confusing McDonald with Heller. Miller was a rape because it ASSUMED that the federal government had power to regulate small arms and then "held" that the 2A didn't apply to regulation of non-military weapons. The reasoning was specious in two regards

1) the court (which did not hear from Miller since he had died and had no counsel present) made a factual finding that SOS had no militia use which was false -rather the court should have remanded that to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing

2) the court assumed that the NFA was based on proper federal power which it wasn't. The court in 1939 had been castrated by FDR and was pretty much a lapdog tribunal. You cannot find a single major league scholar who will say that the commerce clause was intended to have ANYTHING to do with private citizens firearms and most will admit that states were the smallest unit that this clause was supposed to deal with

IN Cruikshank the justices noted that areas where the states had clear power were areas that the federal government were not supposed to act

so Miller is one of the least intellectually honest decisions on several fronts

sadly "conservative justices" who were able to get on the court after 20 years of FDR/TRUMAN appointments, tended to be fluffers of precedent and refused to overturn stuff that was complete crap. Nowadays, people like Scalia admit to being "Faint hearted originalists" meaning they are unwilling to strike down stuff that has been around so long that it has become part of the fabric of our judicial precedent even though clearly wrong

 

Of course the whole " gun grabbing" mantra is a hobgoblin. Allows opponents of responsible gun ownership to avoid intelligent discussion on ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, gangs, and the mentally unstable.

 

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The right to have a gun - like all rights - is governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.

 

It secures that States' sovereign right.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law, in Any conflict of laws.

 

There are federal laws regarding Arms for the federal Districts; why, if it is good enough or bad enough for them in those federal districts, is it repugnant to the several citizens in the several States? Do we merely need better Standards fixed by our federal Congress.

 

I believe the Supreme Court may have "exceeded" its Jurisdiction by incorporation from a federal Case arising from a federal enclave; organic laws are distinct enough to merit such a consideration.

 

Some in the Peanut Gallery who don't feel like slogging through the assorted cranks and trolls playing " I Touched You Last!!! NYAH NYAH !!!" might want to read the Original Militia Act of 1792 to get a clearer idea of what those in the Founder era and later, up to the beginning of the 20th century, had in mind re militias:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

It was amended twice, as far as I know,

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/Stat2-207.gif

And, there was a Militia Act passed in 1862:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

Another in 1903, etc. The latter repealed the 1792 Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

 

Nope. It codifies a right into the law. Without the amendment dc v heller wouldn't have even went to court.

MOD EDIT>>>RULE 5<<<

 

you are somewhat correct but if the FDR court had been honest, federal gun control never would have happened because the 1934 NFA should have been found to be a violation of the TENTH amendment or even more accurately, the justices would have said congress had not enumerated power to engage in gun control since that was never even hinted at in Article I Sec 8 and it was already a state power

 

Ayuh,... The top of the slippery slope We've been slidin' down since 1934,.....

 

The right to have a gun is subject to both state and federal law. Indeed, we now have more restrictive laws on gun ownership and usage than ever before. And, thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA to make the Second Amendment applicable to an individual right, American gun owners will find themselves the more "well regulated."

 

If the New Black Panthers included bazookas and Howitzers to their patrols it might make the ghetto safer from police government brutality:

 

dude; the Only reason we have any gun control laws at all; is because gun lovers don't inspire that Confidence in thier Sincerity with their very Own, elected representatives; that must always be taken as a sign, omen, and portent for hear say and sooth say purposes.

 

Maybe, been a while and they are both very long complicated and convoluted opinions.

I completely agree, though IIRC Millers attorney had died and Miller couldn't be found.

FWIW though I think Miller could be used today to gain ground on the gun rights issue. Millers common use provision could now be applied to true assault rifles. Now that the M16 is the standard armament of our military it is now in common use in the military and would fall under Millers definition of what is protest by the second.

 

[video=youtube;WTdO-w3xnpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTdO-w3xnpw[/video]

 

some statists claim that it has to be civilian use (they pretend cops aren't civilians) which of course would frustrate the second by allowing the government to immediately ban any new development

If civilian cops are using it, its in common use

 

I have never seen anything that hints of intelligent discussion from gun banners because those who lead that movement are liars about their real motivations

and sorry-claiming its ok to ban guns from the honest so the criminal element cannot then get them from legitimate owners is not intelligent

I have spent 40 years dealing with the anti gun movement

go ahead, tell me what you think is intelligent discourse or discussion and I will show you (or I should say objective readers) why your ideas are not

 

Those statists would be wrong, Miller says common use in military.

Very good point about cops.

 

complete fail constitutionally.

what part of the constitution actually delegated any such power to the federal government

 

the right to self defense (yes, vs tyrannical gov't, too) existed before the US constitution and we'll still have that right even if the Second is done away with. Do'nt base your arguments upon pieces of paper that can be abrogated. The Second, btw, had NOTHING to do with animal-defense and hunting. It is soley intended to protect us vs tyrannical govt run amok. That's what the Founding Fathers had just fought a war about and what the Swiss militia has been about for 500 years now.

 

Never gonna happen , give it up.