They Want to Take Your Guns

Pray tell precisely why should it not?

Pray tell how is it vital that the contents of your phone be protected against unwarranted searches and seizures?

 

Amendments are boring. Much easier to simply reinterpret the existing constitution, which is what they do 90 percent of the time.

Of course they're coming for your guns. They fetishize Australia's gun laws.

 

Bluntly put, I do not care if you get it or not. I am certain the rest of the posters did get it. You might want to fight that urge to get ugly to me.

 

What do the conservatives say when it's pointed out that all of the states had abandoned "state militias" by 1950 because the state national guard, that is already armed, replaced the state militias even in Republican states.

 

This is not a right granted by the Constitution.

That's IN the ruling. Not a lot to get wrong there

 

Hmm, a fundamental understanding of the fact that there is really no such thing as an American Citizen is a good start.

http://www.realtruth.biz/freedomstuff/state citizen or us citizen.htm

And we do not want to be 14th AMD federal citizens under the infiltrated federal government.

We only have power over the federal through our states.

Of course the infiltrated gov wants Americans ignoring the 1st AMD, as if somehow the 2nd was going to solve the problems, because it won't.

Without the 1st, no unity can be created. The gov militarized police get to take out each armed malcontent one at a time. Much better than a unified populace.

Consider using the 1st AMD to protect the 2nd AMD. We have a right to a lawfulman and peaceful revolution. The first thing we need to logically do is end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech so effective unity under law can be created. Then all rights can protected no matter what.

 

I say the militia part mattered more in the late 1700s than today. But thankfully they were smart enough to include that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Actually when the enemy sees how well armed this nation is, it is suicide for them to invade us. Neat how that worked out isn't it?

 

Believe it or not, there are college graduates that believe things like that. ^^^^

i reserve the right to exclaim maybe i just do not fully understand your meaning.

Citizens are fully citizens of their state and one can use extradition to take notice that each state sees the rest of the states as sovereigns.

 

Yeah that's called "due process" where someone has proven they can't be trusted with a gun.

Ironically, those are the one's more likely to shoot you eh?

Committing a felony in 1776 meant you lost your life in most cases, which is a big drag on the whole life and liberty thing too.

 

This actually works against your argument. It can be viewed that arms were needed by the people at that time, for the very reason that the US didn't have a military. This isn't true now, and hasn't been true for some time The NRA omits the militia reference of Amendment 2, from the wall of their headquarters for this very reason.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/len-hart/nra-lies-and-propaganda-exposed/10151563933838362

 

Enjoy that fantasy. That's all it is. We're protected by the world's largest military and two oceans.

pea shooters are a non-issue in that regard

 

I would agree with both statements in part but there are still issues that the extremists in the pro-gun right represented by the NRA incorrect on.

Based upon the "militia" clause the government can regulate what types of "arms" are protected for the militia and, if I recall correctly, that was done historically with rifles for the militias. Logistical considerations would, for example, dictate what ammunition was to be supplied so the caliber and type of firearm could be regulated.

It's also humorous that the extreme "right" of the pro-gun groups do mention that the vast amount of personal firearms in the United States, estimated at more that 300 million firearms, does make the invasion of the United States rather foolish by any country but if that's the case then why are these same people the most staunch advocates for expanding the US military when we're not threatened by invasion or even attack today? If the "armed people" provide for the national defense then why do we need to spend ten-times more than any other nation on national defense?

We can also note that the 2nd Amendment, in referring to the "right" to keep and bear arms is a reference to a statutory right, not a natural/inalienable right of the person. Natural/inalienable rights are inherent in the person and a firearm is external to the person. The natural/inalienable right is the right of self-defense against acts of aggression and it's limited to the least amount of force necessary to stop the act of aggression..

BTW I'm a 2nd Amendment advocate and gun owner but the NRA's extremist position is illogical and not supported. The government does have the authority under the Constitution to impose regulations on arms, including prohibitions of certain types of arms including firearms, based upon the government's responsibility to provide for the public safety. That's not supportive of the anti-gun lobby's efforts in many cases because the regulations they sometimes seek are based upon emotion as opposed to valid public safety issues but the pro-gun lobby is also wrong because they oppose measures that can provide for the public safety.

There is logical middle ground which is why we need a diverse Supreme Court that applies both originalist and non-originalist criteria in all cases and not just 2nd Amendment cases. The "Textualist" (pure originalism) will sometimes encounter the situation where an absurdity will result and that must be balanced with the "Pragmatist" (pure non-originalism). The "Intentionalist" (that has dubious linkage to originalism) ignores that the "intent" of authors of the Constitution opposed the application of "intent" in interpreting the Constitution. Finally the "Natural Rights Theorist" (dubiously linked to non-originalism) virtually always fails to provide the argument to support the Natural Right by providing the underlying Natural Law. Natural Rights are actually very limited based upon Natural Law.

When addressing the 2nd Amendment cases they must be approached based upon all four of the basic criteria for interpretation: Textualism, Intentionalism, Pragatism, and Natural Rights and in each case the order of importance can change and a Supreme Court Justice needs to be flexible in interpretation if the best decision for the nation is to be reached under the Constitution. Textualism cannot be allowed to lead to an absurd decision and in those cases Pragmatism must prevail. .
.

 

And Miller placed restrictions on the ownership of automatic weapons

 

I'm not sure we have the world's largest military but we certainly have the most mission capable military.

 

The Second Amendment does not specifically protect "firearms" but instead protects "arms" and the Constitution fundamentally leaves the authority to Congress to define which "arms" fall under the protections of the Second Amendment.

 

Both Miller and Cruikshank were addressed by the united state supreme court in the matter of Heller.

It is your argument that they are incorrect in their ruling on the matter of Heller, McDonald and Caetano. Therefore you tell them that they are incorrect, and that yourself and only yourself truly knows the correct interpretation of the matter.

Thus meaning the right to be armed for legal and lawful purposes is not something granted to the people by government, and cannot be removed from existence by repealing the second amendment, which merely recognizes and protects its existence.

The fact that you have demonstrated a complete inability to understand a basic concept that is spelled out in plain language, is not the fault of anyone but yourself. Your militia argument has not only been outright rejected, it has been killed and buried. It is no longer a valid argument, holding no more credibility at this point than claiming the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.[/QUOTE]

 

it actually doesnt. This means that whether it is relevant or not the ammendment is there. If you believe the ammendment is not necessary then you should repeal it. Until then anything against it is unconstitutional.

 

its the same thing the militia is the justification for the rights of all citizens to have guns without infringement. A militia may be needed in the future. If you believe that is not the case then repealing the 2nd is remedy.

 

Normally I try to stay out of this discussion. But, I spent over ten years as the elected Commanding Officer of a state militia.

The Declaration of Independence states that:

"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."

Unalienable Rights are one of the foundational principles upon which this nation was built. They were important enough to resist they tyranny of King George over and go to war over. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson characterized the Declaration of Independence this way:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."
http://www.westillholdthesetruths.org/quotes/category/declaration-of-independence

Those who attempt to understand the Second Amendment outside of the purview of unalienable Rights are making an argument with only half the truth.

The government does not grant you unalienable Rights. They can acknowledge them and they can guarantee them. But, in our de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, the government does not grant unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights cannot be confused with "inalienable" rights, as the Courts have interpreted the two differently.

The United States Supreme Court HELD:

"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 U.S. 542 (1875)

1) The individual Right to keep and bear Arms exists

2) The Constitution does not grant the Right

3) With or without the Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear Arms exists because the Right does not depend upon the Second Amendment for its existence.

Beyond that, subsequent Courts and the legislatures have made attempts to imply that the government grants Rights. They don't. Our failure to understand that means that we will ultimately submit to a dictatorship. Let's look at the holding of another U.S. Supreme Court ruling and examine this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Whoa!!! Do YOU believe that? Your "Rights" are not unlimited? You mean, if a majority votes, you may not be able to practice the religion of your choice? You mean the government can limit what books you read? We're already at the stage wherein the government is telling us there is no Right to Privacy, yet the biggest issue the colonists had in the founding of America was King George's attempts to invade privacy rights. No, my friends. Either the Bill of Rights absolutely guarantees unalienable Rights OR the government grants Rights and the word unalienable has no meaning.

If you had asked one of the founding fathers to explain the Second Amendment to you, they would have told you the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees an individual Right to keep and bear Arms so that a militia (not the standing army) can be "regulated." The militia can be regulated so as to guarantee the greatest success if the government ever tried to oppress the citizenry.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The great object is that every man be armed.
....Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
- Patrick Henry http://ammo.com/articles/founding-fathers-quotes

There is much more...

 

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

"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 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...”


Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) was a Georgia state supreme court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the .Second Amendment This was the first time a gun control measure was overturned on Second Amendment grounds.

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"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)

Do you see how ALL the Courts were in agreement about what the Second Amendment meant from the days of the founding fathers to at least 1875?

 

The Second Amendment does not protect "firearms" but instead protects "Arms" and the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define which arms are protected and which arms are not protected under the Second Amendment because the Congress has the Constitutionally delegated responsibility of protecting the nation.
.

 

Your bolded text has to do with the weapon and if it is suitable for service in the militia, not the person who claimed protection under the 2nd.

As pointed our, and left unaddressed by you, is the fact the 2nd, under Miler, protects the right of a 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.

Thus you are wrong, yet again.

 

I explained and described in detail how the cases you cited do no such thing.
Your lack of meaningful response to same speaks volumes.

 

I see you deliberately and dishonestly omitted the next part

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.

-No- rights are granted by the constitution.

Unless, of course, you believe there is no right to free speech or assembly:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government.... It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution.

Thus, Cruikshank does nothing to support your position.

 

It is every bit as vital today as it was in 1791, if not more so.