They Want to Take Your Guns

Miller held:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

To the citizen, meaning Miller, someone not connected with the militia.
Why do you continue to not understand the relationship to the militia specified by Miller has to do with the weapon, not the person?
Are you lying to yourself, or just us?

 

It also does not say the only 2nd protects the rights of people in the militia while in service of same.
Go ahead -- move your goalpost.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat yourself, nothing in the 2nd, or any other part of the Constitution, specifies that for "the people" to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, they must be part of the militia.

 

Cruikshank

The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.

The SC said that the Second doesn't apply.

 

Well except fr that "well regulated militia..." phrase huh?

 

Correct.
However, you have no idea why, you have no idea what the argument to that effect is no longer valid, and you have no idea what the decision does not support your position.
This is, of course, because you refuse to pay attention.

 

Correct - the term "well regulated militia" does not specify that for "the people" to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, they must be part of the militia.

 

None of which is actually relevant to the discussion at hand. What the united state supreme court ruled in Cruikshank was that even if the second amendment of the united states constitution was repealed, the right to be armed for legal purposes would continue to exist even without the second amendment being in the bill of rights.

 

EVERYTHING in Miller was in reference to the Militia...that is WHY they are discussing what kinds of weapons were and were not covered.

 

Not "even if the Second didn't apply"...it specifically said it did NOT

 

Correct...the term "Well regulated militia" gives meaning to the rest of the Amendment

 

You just admitted that the Second doesn't apply.

I guess there is hope for you

 

Lesh,

I'm not trying to tell you who you should accept as your authority, so please don't tell me who I should answer to. Please read this carefully:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence – which is at the head of the U.S. Code, the official laws of the United States and has been used as precedent in over 100 cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.)

My rights to Life and Liberty are unalienable. Government did not grant that Right and they are powerless to pass legislation that affects those Rights. I challenge you to look up that word unalienable.

Take at look at this court ruling:

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356

The first time a court overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds, this is how the court ruled:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What was the "end to be attained?" Was it to create a civilian militia with uniforms, registered weapons, and a command structure? No, it was not. What was the "end to be attained?" I've told you the answer to this three times at least in this thread alone. Let me give you the answer again:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry

The founding fathers did not want a standing army and they felt that if the general public were armed, they could be called into service in an emergency. The Second Amendment did not create nor did it confer any such Right to bear Arms. We've been over this umpteen times and the Court rulings bear this out in unequivocal language.

 

That of couse is a fallacious arguement since the relevant statistic is guns per unit of population. And nobody would follow a fool into battle that thinks they are going to defeat a trained army with a few popguns. Well I should take that back there are probably a few equally deluded fools willing to follow another fool to the slaughter.

 

Your theory has been tested in the courts and the courts did NOT agree with you. Period.

 

Ah, another fruitloop obsessed with peeing. Must be a Conservative.

 

Actually as noted that's not true.

The precedent supports my position. Recent rulings by "activists Justices" ignored precedent

 

On Tuesday, President Trump signed a bill that overturned an Obama-era rule designed to stop certain individuals with mental disorders from buying guns.

Issued near the end of Obama's presidency, the rule banned gun ownership by people who are on Social Security disability because they have mental health problems that prevent them from working and who must have someone manage their financial affairs. The Social Security Administration would have been required to send the names of these beneficiaries to the federal system that does background checks on people applying for gun licenses.

According to press reports, about 75,000 people would have been affected by the regulation had it been implemented. The Social Security Administration approved the rule on December 19, 2016, but under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has 60 legislative days to disapprove of any new regulation by majority vote.

In the first half of February, the House and Senate passed the legislation to overturn the Obama administration rule, mainly along party lines. The bill's passage revived the controversy that had attended the regulation when it was issued. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association — organizations not usually aligned in their legislative positions — joined with advocacy groups for the disabled to assail the rule and to support the bill to eliminate it.


Opponents of the rule argued that barring gun ownership by this group of people with mental health problems was a violation of due process and cast too wide a net. Jeffrey Swanson, MD, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, noted in a Chicago Tribune op-ed article that a Florida study had shown that the vast majority of individuals with serious mental illnesses are not violent or suicidal. They are no more likely to use a gun to harm others than the general adult population in Florida, he said.

In contrast, editorials in the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times said that the rule made sense because it would have kept guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. The Tribune argued that if someone is on Social Security because of mental illness and cannot manage their own affairs, they should not be able to own a gun.

During the Senate's consideration of the bill, the Times noted, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "envisioned" that the rule might prevent people with eating disorders from buying guns. "To the contrary," the Times said, "the rule was focused narrowly on disabled individuals who require a trustee for personal management. They would have had the right to appeal."

Despite the solid Republican support for the bill to allow mentally ill people to have guns, some Republicans in Congress loudly called for better mental health care in the wake of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut, massacre. In that incident, a mentally troubled young man used a legally purchased assault weapon to kill 20 children and six school employees, along with his mother and himself.

 

Nothing there was from the Supreme Court OR the Constitution. Nunn was a state court ruling.

FAIL

 

Are you still selling that snake oil? Those damn Vietcong should have listened to your morsels of wisdom. Their popguns were pretty damn effective.

Okay, let's play the CourtJester's silly game. He says:

"...the relevant statistic is guns per unit of population..."

Population of Iraq = 36 MILLION people and under 9 MILLION weapons

United States = 325 MILLION people with 300 MILLION guns

No damn fool thinks they can defeat an army with a "few" popguns, but when every able American can obtain a weapon, it is impossible for a tyrant to subject this nation to tyranny.

Jesus had a mere twelve disciples and he changed the world. He also mandated that his disciples carry a sword (even if they had to hock their robes in order to do so.) The disciples were as well armed as any man on Caesar's SWAT team. Jesus changed the world!

On the other end of the spectrum, Adolph Hitler starts out with a few drunks sitting in a pub and he takes a country no larger than the state of Texas and damn near takes over the world. Don't try to sell us this notion that a well armed populace can't stop an army. You're arguing against history and you're arguing against common sense.

Even if what you say were true (and it isn't) it is legally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

You must be very young if you don't remember the North Vietnam involvement in Vietnam. But do tell us where a well armed populace has stopped an invading army. And no dude it wasn't the Revolutionary war.

 

FAIL? WTF is really wrong with you? FAIL? YOU FAIL! We've provided more than a hundred quotes that interpret the Constitution for you. Yes, Nunn v. Georgia is a state court interpreting the Second Amendment. That was in 1846. Other states interpreted it as well. Another state court ruled:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Higher courts are free to over-rule those precedents. THEY DID NOT!

In 1875, the United States Supreme Court RULED:

'The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )

The Right exists
It's not granted by the Second Amendment
Your Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the United States Supreme Court, is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

Looks to me like the Cruikshank decision UPHELD the precedents of Nunn v Georgia and Cockrum v. State.

 

Vietnamese kicked the arse of the French, the British and the Americans

YES, the War of Independence - started by... what 55 men and culminating in our Constitution.

In Indochina (1946 - 1954) Indonesia, Cyprus, Aden, Morocco, and Tunisia local nationalist forces gained their objectives in armed confrontations with industrial powers which possessed an overwhelming majority in conventional military capability.

I'm young? Okay... if you say so. But, you asked and you've been answered. How many more examples do you want?

 

BULL FREAKING S***!!!

You just complained that Nunn v. Georgia was a STATE ruling!!!!! If you stand by that crap that you got your rights from a "local" level, well I have quoted TWO states that disagree with you. Let's do a THIRD:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187

There you go. Three years AFTER the Cruikshank decision you keep quoting and the Courts are still saying citizens have a Right to wear a war arm. Did it ever dawn on you that the states cannot over-rule the Supreme Court; therefore, you interpretation is still WRONG.

 

Pray tell what part of the plain language is not being comprehended? Are there too many syllables being used all at the same time?

In Cruikshank the united state supreme court ruled that the right of the people to be armed for legal, lawful, and legitimate purposes existed long before the second amendment was ever considered for ratification. It is a right that would continue to exist even if the second amendment was to be repealed. The second amendment merely recognizes the existence of the right, and provides a method of preventing government infringement of said right. Under no circumstances, in no way, does the second amendment make the right contingent upon militia service.