Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

I have already stated my position that Democrats should have the same rights and privileges that Republicans get away with.

So unless you are saying Republicans are violating the constitution and thus that makes you concerned Democrats will do so then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.

 

If that were true, it would have been a settled point, but it's not. The amendment's syntax, though it may have been clear to the early modern Englishman, is not so clear to the modern person of English. Hell, look at the Miller ruling.

And you don't have an agenda? And you think the 'experts' who agree with you, don't have an agenda?

You don't think Scalia or Thomas have an agenda?

Give me break.

The framers wrote the Constitution, in a number of key areas, in very broad (purposely allowing for varying interpretations over time). the first and second amendments are examples of this. Both have been debated for a few centuries now.

First thing you need to do is learn the simple fact that 'anothers' is not a word. I might have allowed it as a typo, but, then, you repeated it seven more times.

I'm sorry, but if it were that simple as you say, then there would have been no need for Heller, the 1975 law in Wash DC would never have been enacted, let alone the Sullivan Act in NY in 1911, nor other similar acts in other states.

You'd love nothing more for the issue to be 'simple' but history and facts positively do not support your conclusion, particularly given the Supreme Court, in 1939, in Miller, wrote:

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment seems to be, that the people should have arms when necessary for their defense, not that they should have a right to carry them for private purposes." --United States v. Miller
​

I hardly see the 'individual right' treatment in Miller. Moreover, it's not even stating it in concrete terms. Clearly indicating the second amendment is not clearly and concisely written. Scalia's 'prefatory clause' was NOT a standard grammatical rule in the 18th century.

In the late 18th century, the study of grammar and sentence structure did exist, but the terminology and concepts were somewhat different from what is used today. The focus was more on classical languages like Latin and Greek, which heavily influenced grammatical theory and teaching in English.

The term "prefatory clause" in the context of a compound sentence is not a standard grammatical term used in the late 18th century or in modern grammar. Even when I was in school, there was no such thing as a 'prefatory clause', it was, and still is, taught as 'independent and dependent clauses' or 'subordinate clauses'. Scalia is literally making stuff up to conform to HIS RIGHT WING AGENDA which he deceptively calls a 'judicial philosophy'. In modern grammar, a sentence that is compound, with two clause, there is no main clause or one that is subordinate to the other, they both are equal and are joined because they are verisimilar. This is how a number of scholars state that 'the militia' and 'the people' are one and the same given that, in 1788, ever able bodied male of 18 through about 45 were expected to serve in the state's militia. Since women and blacks could not vote, 'the people' and 'the militia' many have interpreted as the same. Scalia separates the clauses each being stand alone. But, if that were the intent, then they would have been expressed in stand alone fashion, two separate sentences with distinctly different meanings.

NO, I'm sorry, given the evolution of the English language, this is NOT a 'simple' thing.

"guns are not the problem'. More commonly known as the 'guns are not the problem, people are the problem'.

So, taking that trope through to it's logical conclusion. We could put it this way

"Atom bombs are not the problem, people are the problem'.

Let's be honest, for once in our lives, both guns and people are the problem. The solution requires addressing both.

I don't believe they explicitly held for or acknowledged the 'individual right' in the sense that it is binding as legal precedent, but feel free to cite the cases you are referring to.

You've made two factual errors:
1. Scalia's statement " "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"" is a central holding to the ruling in Heller. So that contraverts your first claim that Heller did not find or establish an individual right.
2. Heller did NOT incorporate to the states. It was McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) that did that.

So, two clear facts wrong, i suspect your entire rebuttal is wrong, as well.

Still, before Heller, Miller was ruled on, and, as such, was not a moot case.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rverted-the-meaning-of-the-2nd-amendment.html

Sunday night, when my son asked me why we shoot each other dead almost every day in America, I got to tell him that it’s because we are “free.” We are free to get a .223 caliber AR-15–style semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. And we are free to sell those weapons to someone who might shoot and kill 49 people in a nightclub because of whom they choose to love. We are free to arm ourselves against any potentially tyrannical federal government and also free to watch our children bleed to death in our schools, and churches, and clubs.

And we are free to do it all again tomorrow and the day after that. We are free to feel paralyzed and trapped in a system that is literally killing us.

Freedom in America also means that we are free to wake up every morning hoping that it’s not our kid who gets shot with a weapon of war, and free to wake up hoping it’s not our kid who shoots someone, and free to wake up praying it’s not our kid, or our spouse, or our neighbor who shoots herself. In this freest country on earth, we also happen to be in a perpetual hostage situation, in which one false move—or merely the choice to go to class, or to dance with friends—means you may wind up dead.
​

So, three cheers for 'freedom', and all the dead children that it brings. Congratulations, Justice Scalia

 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, unless you don't have the cash.

 

It has been a settled point now for over 200 years.
Just because you attack it, doesn't mean it isn't settled
which is why the 2nd has stood firm without exception from its inception.

Balderdash.
Just because leftist think they can redefine words to fit what ever agenda they have at the time, doesn't mean the constitution isn't clear.
Not only is the 2nd absolutely clear, its withstood EVERY attack from the anti gun lobbyist without fail.

Having anti constitutionalist and anti gun lobbyist, and anti republican cults debating (challenging) doesn't mean the Constitution was written for your interpretation. Too funny.

​

Another yet failed attempt to try and interpret things the left doesn't like.
The words
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Means EXACTLY the same thing now as it did when they were written.
Showing the founding fathers KNEW anti Constitutionalist and Gun confiscators and anti Gun activist were going to try and disarm American citizens so they only wrote it in 27 words that still stands unimpeded to this day under decades of anti gun political hacks attacking it.

There is no evolution of the English language. lol
Is that like the lefts reimagine language?
You going to now reimagine the Constitution to your own liking?
SUPER FAIL.

Thats not possible for the left.

And the perfect example as to the left claiming, lets be honest.
When they can't solve their problems through their interpretations of the constitution, or through the self claimed evolution of the English language, or attacking the 2nd amendment for decades, they then claim inanimate objects are now the problem.
But only those particular inanimate objects they don't like at the time. This is how ridiculous they have become.

Heller was an affirmation of an existing constitutional right.
If you are unaware of what an affirmation is, its the action or process of affirming something that already exist.

Says the left who prefer to live under the yoke of a government because they love government control of their lives.
If the left was truly concerned with childrens lives they wouldn't live under the idea that gun free zones save lives or fight against protecting our children from the deranged with armed individuals.
Sorry, the lefts actions speak WAY LOUDER than their reimagined evolution of their English language.
​

 

My only agenda is preserving Rights. Your agenda is to break down Rights.

No, they have not been debated for centuries. They've been debated for less than a century. And no, the Founders did not "purposefully allow for varying interpretations over time". Where the hell did you get that idiotic idea from? They wrote it in plain English so that the Common Man could understand it. On purpose. They were against convoluted laws. Its only recently that we've been having laws passed that number hundreds, or even thousands of pages.

Wah? You got the point did you not?

It IS that simple. Just because you want it complicated so that you can make the issue murky, does not mean its not simple.

Except that it is simple. We know for a FACT that we had a revolutionary war. We know for a FACT that prior to that revolutionary war the Brits tried to disarm The People because they knew that if they could do that then The People would not be able to rebel against them. We know for a FACT that the Founders knew this. We know for a FACT that if it were not for The People being Armed then we would still be under British Rule. Why would the Founders then establish a form of government that could take The Peoples Right to Self Defense against Tyranny away? They wouldn't. You know this. I know this. Everyone with a brain knows this.

If you were being honest you wouldn't need to resort to extremes. No one is trying to make the claim that an atom bomb is needed for self defense. A militia would also not carry around an atom bomb. You're using a false equivalency fallacy.

They do not need to explicitly hold that there is an individual Right. They simply have to mention it. And I've already told them to you before. I'm tired of repeating myself. So look them up yourself.

The right to bear arms exists outside of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, like all the Rights held in the BoR's, simply prevents the government from interfering with it. Scalia's statement is correct. But Scalia's statement does not establish the Right.

Who said anything about mootness? I sure didn't. Miller was ruled on, that is a fact. But it is also fact that it was ruled on despite the fact that the Miller had died prior the arguments made and ruled on. Tell me, how could an argument be made against the State, when the person who was supposed to do so died before they could make their argument? What the judges in Miller did was hear the State's arguments....and no one elses. Since they had no other argument to hear, they could only go with the argument that was made.

Appeal to pity fallacy. Here are the facts:

 

Well done sir

 

That communist logic isn't going to get you very far...lol

 

So you agree, CAN BE INFRINGED

 

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's absolutely a settled point. The only people who don't understand that are the folks who want to lie about what "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. Hell, there's one poster on this very thread that thinks it means that guns should be free...lol

 

Do you own property?

 

Nope.

 

If that were true, there would not have been Heller.

Even in Miller, 1939, the language suggests 'collective right'.

No agenda is required for facts. And what are the facts?
1. If 2A 'individual v collective right' were a settled issue, there wouldn't have been collective reference in Miller, nor would Heller have been needed. I regret to inform you that you have no argument to refutes this glaringly clear fact.

2. Early Modern English and Late Modern English of the late 18th century differed in a number of respects. We can discuss them, if you want.

I regret to inform you that Heller was the first Supreme Court case to directly and explicitly affirm the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If this issue were 'settled' where would be no need for Heller.

You have no counter to that inescapable, immutable, undeniable, incontrovertible fact.

The issue is NOT about 'confiscating guns'. Owning a horse is not a 'right' yet no one is banning horses. The second amendment can easily be argued it is there (among the 10 BOR demanded by the anti-federalists) to protect state's militias, especially since, Virginia, whose 9th signature was needed, was a plantation economy (as were the other southern states), and they needed their militias for state patrols, the other reason why the second amendment uses the word 'state' instead of country so they worded it thus to give Virginia the incentive to sign, it was given to protect the southern states against the federal governments and the pro-federalists whom they feared would usurp the state militias and subsume them into the continental army, or use them for that purpose. The second amendment strongly arose out of a military, not an individual, context, and the 'militia' and 'the people' were one in the same, for clearly, 'the people' did not include blacks and women for they could not vote. they didn't worry about guns being confiscated, they worried about congress subsuming state militias away from the states for 'standing army' purposes, whcih the anti-federalists loathed.

Again, I regret to inform you that Heller was the first Supreme Court case to directly and explicitly affirm the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If this issue were 'settled' where would be no need for Heller.

You have no counter to that inescapable, immutable, undeniable, incontrovertible fact.

I doth lament to make known unto thee that the judgment rendered in Washington DC v Heller didst mark the maiden case by the Supreme Court to directly and manifestly uphold the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right of each individual.

Were this matter firmly resolved, there wouldst be no necessity for the adjudication of Washington DC v Heller.

Thou canst not present an argument to gainsay this undeniable truth

So much for your 'no evolution' bullshit. There were distinct differences in early modern era and current English. (Yes, I know my example goes back further than early modern, I did it to refute your claim, which you did not qualify).

Vacuous claim, lacks substantiation

Which, of course, equals 'fail'.

Let's take that old trope 'guns are not the problem, people are the problem' to it's aburd conclusion:

"Atom bombs are not the problem, people are the problem".

That both are the problem in the above absurd statement is as true as it applies to guns. Both need to be addressed.

Which,. if you were honest, you would agree.

Why was it needed?

Because the issue hasn't been settled since 2A was penned.

One more time, I regret to inform you that Heller was the first Supreme Court case to directly and explicitly affirm the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If this issue were 'settled' where would be no need for Heller.

You have no counter to that inescapable, immutable, undeniable, incontrovertible fact.

A 'gun free zone' is not that great of a solution no more than a 'smoke free sitting area' prevents the smokers in the smoking area of restaurants from polluting the air in the non smokers section. But, in an era of cigarettes and guns everywhere, they try to cope the best they can.

Alas, ban cigarettes in all public places. Problem solved (in CA, don't know about your state) But they can smoke in their homes, of course.

See a similarity?

Oh, so you say cigarettes are not a right?

Yes, but it doesn't negate the public health and safety issue, in theory.

References:

• "The Second Amendment and the Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Joyce Lee Malcolm (1994): This book argues that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of states to maintain their own militias, and that the right to bear arms was not an individual right.
  
  
• "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" by John Locke (1689): This book, which is considered one of the most influential works of political philosophy, argues that individuals have a natural right to self-defense, but that this right does not include the right to bear arms.
  
  
• "Federalist No. 46" by Alexander Hamilton (178: This essay, which is one of the Federalist Papers, argues that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of states to maintain their own militias, and that the federal government did not have the power to disarm citizens.
  
  
• "The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The History of Second Amendment" by Stephen P. Halbrook (1994): This book argues that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual's right to own guns, but that this right was not unlimited.
  
  
• "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right" by Joyce Lee Malcolm (200: This book argues that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of states to maintain their own militias, and that the right to bear arms was not an individual right.

So much for the debate being 'settled' before Heller.

 

Since the 2nd amendment was affirmed in both cases, and no changes prior to or after Miller or Heller were ever created, then the actual glaring fact is, there was never a need for Miller or Heller as the SCOTUS were, and are, still, unwavering on what the 2nd amendment states.
And nothing brought by Heller or Miller did anything other then AFFIRM what ALREADY existed.

For there to be a need for Heller or Miller, then a ruling that does not affirm the 2nd amendment would need to be ruled on.

Sorry you can't wrap you head around what affirm means. But filing lawsuits or getting in front of the SCOTUS does not show any need, unless you can change the minds of the sitting judges.

Which never happened

And blah blah blah

If its so easily argued, why has it never been successful since the 2nd amendments inception?
Sorry, you lose

You mean like there has never been an inescapable, immutable, undeniable, incontrovertible fact that has caused the SCOTUS to rule in your favor?
Too funny

The right already existed. No interpretation was necessary.
Which is why they AFFIRMED.

Then you can show us your 16th century Shakespearean language in the Constitution.
No?
Oh, I get it, you didn't have any other way to support your language evolution BS so you were forced to go even more ridiculous, to try and defend your first ridiculous language evolution BS by substituting 16th century language.
Just wow
Talk about a fail. Good God.

Speaking of absurd conclusions and ridiculous claims, you now have to reach as far as citizens carrying atom bombs to try and make your point?
I'm just going to let that reference speak for itself.
Just like your 16th century language provision.

Well, not to your satisfaction but to everyone else on the planet, its pretty clear its going nowhere.

Good for you,
Baby steps is all that is needed.

Oh, since you put it that way, its common knowledge that all guns are banned at schools.
So according to you, there have been no school shootings?
No, I don't see the similarity.
But in some strange way, I am sure you do.

Now show us ANY
book
or reference,
or cases,
or filings,
or claims,
or hearings,
or rulings,
or discussions
or legal scholars
That have caused the SCOTUS to rule (in any way) against this statement.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry, you lose. (Again)

 

I will have to admit, that is one of the most cohesive, well though out, constitutional arguments I have read to date.
Good for you. Its promising we can agree on something so important and vital to this countries survival.

 

Enjoy what you didn't explain anything probably because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

But! Heller was "needed", evidence it exits. Washington DC, functionally, prohibited individual gun ownership within the district. Heller took Washington DC to court and for himself and ALL Americans won the right of the individual to own firearms for self defense.

• The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
• Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Miller - 1934
Heller - 2008

2023 The "FACTS" are The Second Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes that are in common use at the time.

 

You don't wear clothes?...lol

 

It's not easily explained within the confines of this or any discussion forum. I gave you TWO links that explain in detail what "The Second Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment" means. Did you even read either of the articles? I suggest you start with the second, it's about a 2 to 5 minute read that isn't overly technical in it's wording. And to your point why would you trust me to "know what I'm talking about" when you can easily do your own research and know what YOUR talking about. Obviously other people on this board knew what I was talking about.

 

It's okay if you don't know.

I didn't ask you what the 14th amendment means

Did you?

I don't research other people's arguments. You are the one trying to make a point. That shouldn't require me doing any research it doesn't matter if it does I'm not doing any research you do the research and present your findings.

I don't research anything for you.

 

I do know, you're five minutes away from knowing yourself.

You asked: "What does the 14th amendment have to do with this?" I gave you two links that explain it in detail.

You can remain ignorant and unable to participate in this discussion or read a short article, your choice.


I'm not asking you to research anything for me.

 

First, it is legal for a civilian to own a machinegun, and a Tank, and I can't say for sure about an F-18 (probably not illegal per se, but the US military doesn't let people steal jets in exchange for a loaf of bread, unlike some other former-Super-Powers), but military jets in general are legal, in fact there used to be one on the ramp where I parked my plane, though other than 'Not an F-18', it was a former military jet.

So, no real changes there, except the Hughes Amendment is a dead Law walking, it's not "if" it's gonna get overturned, just when. I agree with your friend, assuming you are talking about means testing on gun control specifically, I do not think it will extend beyond that, at least not yet. Pretty much ALL (or, let's call it 90%) existing gun control laws, and likely just about everyone that y'all have wet dreams about is almost certainly DOA, and for good cause.

Why? As I've repeatedly told you, in your daily threads complaining about Bruen et. al., because it is our right as Americans (indeed, as humans) to own a firearm, indeed it's the right of all humans, though many governments infringe on it. OUR government is PROHIBITED from doing so, sorry.

 

confirm that you know.

I didn't ask for links I asked for an answer.

If you don't know and you just made it up that's okay just admit it.

So then quit telling me you posted sources to research and explain your position if you can.

 

OK ... I know ... there you have it. CONFIRMED
I gave you links because the answer is too long for this format.
Obviously since I'm not the only one referencing "Second Amendment Incorporation" I didn't make it up.
No. Read the Second Link and set your soul free! Or ... don't.


BTW, you could have easily read the second link in the time you've spent harassing me over this.

 

If it's so easy to read why is it so hard for you to explain? Did you not understand it?

If you don't care then explain it.

 

Obviously you don't care enough to invest your time. I just read the whole ****ing 14th Amendment and, having read the articles too, I see how they came to their conclusions. Section 1, second sentence and Section 5 (it's only one sentence) is what you're looking for. That's two *******n sentences, don't over exert yourself. Maybe read one and then in an hour or so read the other.

Aren't you the guy the went round and round trying to discount the value of a college education? Makes perfect sense to me now.