They Want to Take Your Guns

And Cruikshank

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

They ruled that it is A STATE and local matter

 

It has been "discredited" by an opinion from ONE Justice

And I showed you two rulings that support it

 

This makes you as wrong as those to choose to disagree with Roe v Wade.

.. and supports the conclusion reached by the court.

 

You missed this part, found in the actual holding of the case, rather than the dicta you quoted:

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. Not the militia, not a citizen in the militia, not the citizenry as a group or as as a whole, but the citizen as an individual.

This language, as you point out, was agreed upon 9-0; the entire court understood the issue in question dealt directly with the rights of a citizen not connected to the militia in any way.

 

You are free to disagree with the united state supreme court as much as you wish. However it changes nothing. Your opinion has been rejected three consecutive times in a row now, and that is not going to change for a very long time. The precedent has now been set, and just as is with the commerce clause, it is not going to be overturned.

Caetano also spoke heavily about the matter of personal defense, especially in the absence of a state protecting the people from harm.

Determined long after the defendant had died, and could not be present to participate in the matter.

Had the second amendment been exclusively about the militia, the claims of Miller would have been rejected on the basis that Miller lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the prohibition of possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. But the united state supreme court did not take such a route. They determined that Miller, as a private individual, did indeed have standing to challenge the prohibition, despite having no connection to any state militia.

Correct. Meaning the second amendment in the bill of rights did not create the right to be armed for legal purposes, but rather simply recognizes its existence.

Beyond such, your quote is incomplete. The crux of Cruikshank was that the untied states constitution does not restrict the actions of private citizens, only the government itself.

Your interpretation of the matter is incorrect.

And the opinion was rejected by the majority, making it invalid in the discussion.

Two rulings that were addressed in Heller and which did nothing to change their ruling on the second amendment.

 

Um.... no.

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. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress

Any argument you want to make in this regard in nullified by McDonald, which incorporates the 2nd against actions by the state through the due process clause of the 14th.

 

Which, as I pointed out, is meaningless, as his opinion is not supported by the actual ruling of the case.
Dissenting opinions carry exactly the same legal weight as a newspaper editorial.

And I demonstrated how they do not.

 

I pointed out two SC court rulings that support my position so to say that "the Court" disagrees with me...is just plain wrong

 

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.
They correctly ruled that the prefatory clause actually HAS meaning

Miller absolutely shoots these arguments down and if precedent means anything...the 2nd does not apply

 

This is not a right granted by the Constitution.

That;s pretty plain

 

This is not intended to be the complete discussion of rights, but let me get up to bat.

If man gave it to you, it is not a right.

Simple principle.

Man has no higher rights than you have, such that he may look you over and decide .... hey, this seems a nice person, let me grant him rights.

Man has no right to grant rights unless that he grants rights to is what he owns or operates.

A stranger may enter my office and I may grant him the right to the use of the toilets. I can grant him a right to use my phone. I can grant whom I select the right to use my car. But at all times that is my car or my phone, not his. I essentially gave him a license to use.

I do not have the right to let others use your telephone, your car nor your toilet.

I can't grant rights unless I first have the right, such as my right to use my phone or car and then if I wish, I can turn over that right to others.

 

When they wrote up the Bill of Rights

It was accepted that those were never new rights. They are just some guys at some desks writing up words that lay out things the citizens know in their hearts were there rights.

The right to own a firearm was vital. And so important the right was never to be infringed.

Legally infringed means changed. Never in the future was any man or assembly of men to be allowed to change gun rights.

This is such a vital principle of freedom many of us fight for this even if we never will own a gun.

 

I thought Michelle's bare arms were very nice.

 

Since the 2nd amendment includes a militia, let me swing at that too.

Do you have the right to a well regulated militia? The second amendment says you do have that right.

Do you separately have the right to own firearms? Definitely you do. Notice the second did not say the militia can't be infringed on, but does apply to your right to own firearms.

Keep in mind, you got no new rights. You had them all along. But the Feds simply decided to list the to ensure others never would take them or infringe on them.

Today the modern Democrat wants to defile the very constitution we all live under. We must protect the constitution.

 

Why would you actually think that in modern society the right to own a firearm is a vital principle? Vital to me would mean it has a real impact on quality or meaning of life.

 

At that time, they had maybe the most modern of all societies given the importance of the constitution.

I see nothing today calling for our rights to be revoked.

 

Let me do more

Say you own 200 acres of prime mountain land where the deer roam free. And you love deer meat. So you grab your gun and on your own land, get a deer that you freeze.

Enough live inside a city that they seem to have lost the love of the wild, the great outdoors, and the life with no shelter on a foundation such as provided by the tent. They can't correctly light a campfire or put it out.

I believe rights are for all. If i live in the city, I do not believe in government that is in the business of removing rights.

Thus, in a city, you may be located in an area of great danger. And maybe you can't relocate. But with a gun, you can do what a cop can do for you. I believe what a cop can do for me, i can do for myself. That is protect me and my family. This is very vital.

 

None of that demonstrates one single reason why the right to own a gun is vital. Yes I shoot wild pigs and that is fun and makes good sausage. And yes I may feel a bit safer with a gun in the house but the discussion is why the right to own a gun is vital and none of those reasons meet the criteria of being vital.

 

Does this mean you vote with the Democrats?

I am not suggesting the constitution was written solely to please you, but it also has to please me. Do you wish to destroy the constitution?

 

The Militia Act does recognize the Unregulated Militia that is any able bodied and minded enough male who can carry and has arms and can be called up by Congress if it chooses to, States always could have and regulate a more formal Militia under the 10th Amendment so in this case your wrong. However then if its a power given by Congress in that Act they should be allowed fair regulations that means background checks, registration of each firearm in a database and require safety features and this could be seen as fair so they know who they can order called up for Militia Duty if Congress orders it under a mobilization of the nation.

 

We are not talking about the militia act. We are talking about the clear language in the 2nd amendment.

It deals with two matters.

The militia has a bit to do with weapons, (Government can issue weapons for this) but the second amendment clearly names arms and declares our right is never to be infringed upon. To allow the feds or states to infringe as you want them to is upside down.

The militia will always be infringed on. But the people's right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed on.

Frankly I can't wait for the day for the Supreme Court to solve this riddle.

 

Within the realm of a "well regulated militia".

Other than that the 2nd DOESN'T address gun rights.

Everything after that ignores precedent (Miller and Cruikshank) and is nothing but judicial over reach

 

It is expected for the militia to infringe.

So the part where the rights are not to be infringed upon has no connection to militia.

 

Try that in something that resembles English

 

Two rulings which came prior to Heller, McDonald and most recently Caetano, meaning they no longer apply.

Then Miller would not have had standing to challenge his conviction, since he was not part of any militia. Since such did not transpire, you are simply incorrect.

It is plain, but you apparently do not understand the plain language.