The 3rd Amendment is also in force. But it's irrelevant. There are a lot of laws in place that are irrelevant. The 2nd A at least has the distinction of defining it's OWN irrelevancy. MY emphasis on the word "need". QUOTE where I said that, or retract!
It's not irrelevant. If the government tried to violate the Third Amendment, the courts would enforce it. If they are in place, they are still relevant. The Second Amendment is not only relevant, it is vital. It protects America's freedom. "All they need to do is join the National Guard."
You're pretty lousy with idioms, I see. What that means is that they can have access to those weapons by joining the National Guard. "Need" is purely stylistic. There are probably other ways: They could also join any of the branches of the military. Maybe even join the police... .who knows... But it is so irrelevant that it goes beyond absurdity.... You already agreed to the point of this thread, so no need to go down rabbit holes.
That is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment says that the only organization that someone has to join in order to have military weapons is the people. No National Guard. No other military. No police. No anything else. Merely being a member of the people means that a person has the right to have military weapons. The thread is wrong to claim that someone needs to be a member of any body other than the people in order to have the right to possess military weapons.
And it says that while a well regulated militia is necessary to the safety of a free state, it shall not be infringed. Which means that if a well-regulated militia is not necessary for the above.... infringe away! Don't blame me! It's what the 2nd A SAYS. I didn't write it. The framers were so wise, that they included an obsolescence clause right there in the 2nd A So the conversation now becomes whether or not a well regulated militia STILL is necessary to the safety of a free state. But that's a topic for a different thread. In this one, we already agreed.
That is incorrect. It does not say that at all. There is no "while" in the Second Amendment. It is not what the Second Amendment says. They did no such thing. A well regulated militia is always necessary, because the Second Amendment mandates that necessity. We only agree on the fact that the Second Amendment covers military weapons. We do not agree on your various proposals to violate the Second Amendment.
It doesn't just cover military weapons, it covers only a military SCENARIO. If you don't agree with that, then any reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that it covers military weapons would be inconsistent. The ONLY reason why we know it covers military weapons is because "keep and bear arms" refers to a military scenario. And if it refers to a military scenario, then THAT'S what is protected. And this is confirmed, not just by the linguistic structure (which, in and of itself, SHOULD be enough), but by the historical facts surrounding its approval (debate, different versions, Washington's involvement, historical moment, .... EVERYTHING)
more absolute bullshit. the second amendment reiterates that the federal government was never delegated any power whatsoever to interfere with arms private citizens own. you have never ever attempted to explain where the federal government was properly given any powers, whatsoever, to limit the arms of private citizens
To be fair, he does openly state that he is addressing the Second Amendment alone and not addressing what any other parts of the Constitution say. You're making a Tenth Amendment argument here.
That is incorrect. It covers the right to have military weapons in peacetime as well. No inconsistency. The reason why people have the right to have military weapons in peacetime is so they can bring their own weapons if the government summons them to militia duty. Not the only way. We can also look historically at the way militias were used to defend the state. I agree that history confirms the military aspects. But that only means that everyone has the right to have military weapons.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. But that's a different topic. This one is about the 2nd A. I understand why every time you write you attempt to change the subject, though. Because the 2nd A doesn't address the topic that you have been taught (probably by Rush Limbaugh and Wayne Lapier... and similar) to ignore what is actually written in the 2nd A.
I understand you have no legal education, are unfamiliar with constitutional theory and scholarship and you start with the idea that you want to ban guns and you try to force the second amendment to allow your anti gun schemes to exist. What was written in the 2A is that one of the reasons why we need an armed population is to guarantee a free state/ Some scholars claim it is so these armed citizens-trained in arms and able to bring arms to a muster can create a militia to defend the state. others claim it is to serve as a counter to the "well regulated militia" which has to exist to protect the country from foreign interference. Either way, nothing in the amendment restricts "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
That WAS the reason. Now it's unnecessary because the military has plenty of weapons. That's why there are no well-regulated militias because they are unnecessary for the "defence" (sic) of a free state.. Yet again you prove that the 2nd A includes it's own obsolescence. One of the military aspects is that the 2nd A refers to a military scenario.
true because I have already destroyed his outcome based attempts to rewrite the second. he starts with the premise that he wants to ban guns and then tries to rewrite the second to allow what he wants. It is completely dishonest and not only is his tortured mutation of what the words mean pathetic, it completely ignores the historical context of when the second was written. The writers and those who enacted the second, had just thrown off the British Empire with the force of arms. to pretend that the second could be interpreted to allow the government to disarm the citizens is so laughably dishonest that I have to laugh at his machinations
As is obvious to all, I got all I needed of all that to leave you without arguments. Which might not be a lot, but it's good enough for me... And in case there is any doubt, you confirm it by saying: What is dishonest but not laughable is that you just made that up. I have said nothing of the sort. But, of course, if you can't rebut my REAL arguments, might as well fabricate some, right? I don't even know why I took one of your posts seriously by responding to it, since I knew before this is what you do. Thanks for playing...
you just make stuff up-spew an opinion and ignore all the factual evidence to the contrary. can you find a single statement by any founder or legal scholar from that era that supports your nonsense?
It still is the reason. Weapons possessed by a standing army have nothing to do with weapons possessed by the people in case they are called up for militia duty. That is incorrect. Well-regulated militias are always necessary. The Second Amendment mandates that they are necessary. OK. That clause only allows the federal government to pass laws in areas where it has already authority. It does not give the federal government authority over any new areas, and certainly not over the area of firearms regulation. Actually the Second Amendment backs up TD's position 100%.
Can anyone point out where the 1st Congress expressed any concern about protecting the use of guns for private purposes? I don't see it. It seems that their only concern was the militia when the RKBA was brought up. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" There is no right to serve in the militia, so, "keep and bear arms" must include the use of firearms outside service in the militia - that is, for private purposes. See how easy that was?
Obviously, you haven't read the discussion in the 1st Congress about an earlier draft of the Second Amendment.
can you find anything attributable to any signer of the constitution that suggests any of them thought the federal government should be able to prevent citizens of the several states from owning arms?
I have. Nothing in it supports your position. Disagree? Cite your source and copy/paste the text to that effect.
Probably some of them thought that, given that it was forbidden for black people to own guns, swords... or even a club... ANY type of weapon in several states. If you meant no signer believed that white people should be prevented from owning guns, then probably none. But then again, on the same token, they didn't think the government should prevent white people from owning a horse, or a house or... boots... However, "owning" any of the above has nothing to do with the 2nd A.
