It's not so much the law as the principles behind just law that never become obsolete. The principle behind the second amendment is to mind your business, and your defense of your life is your business.
I have no idea what you are talking about. And your inability to produce a quote indicates that you don't either. ALL powers are delegated when they are "necessary and proper". But that's a different topic. If THAT'S what you mean, don't bother. THIS is about the 2nd A
Everything I say is supported either in the post where I say it or in the OP of the corresponding thread (usually in the provided links). So if you object to ANYTHING I say, quote it, and you will find the support.
Right! And if you ever travel to Lawrence, Kansas, don't forget to honk the horn when you cross the city limits to let the horses know you're there. Since a law can't be obsolete, cops are probably checking to apply the $10 fine or 5 days in prison if you don't. You're straw grasping is beyond desperate! But the worst thing about it is that you waste the time of those of us looking for a serious debate.
Right. The Supreme Court, cannot legislate. Not part of the powers granted it by OUR Constitution. <-period
you ignore obvious reality. the second amendment was never needed until the floating turd of FDR started cluttering up our jurisprudence
that's all you have, a poorly misinterpreted punctuation mark. You never can handle the fact that the second says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the militia not linguists not professors not woke lefties but the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE you lose
No, pretty sure that "Necessary and Proper" is your justification for nullifying the second amendment without due process. "Necessary and proper" is this topic here. You just don't want to talk about it.
Amazing! You jump into a thread about the TEXT of the 2nd A as written, and you try to derail that by talking about anything BUT the text of the 2nd A. I point out that the thread is about grammar, and you start talking about history. So I bring your post to a thread about history so you can show off this "vast" knowledge you claim to have about the history leading up to the enactment of the 2nd A and... what is it you decide you want to talk about.... why...the TEXT of the 2nd A, of course. You're such a waste of time!
what you don't like is that I understand this issue at a much higher level than you can comprehend. You pretend that your attempts to twist the language will negate the entire historical context of the creation of the bill of rights and the underlying sentiments that serve as the basis of a document designed to limit government to enumerated powers. you have proven a complete lack of any actual education in any of the relevant history or constitutional theory. Its nothing more than trolling
@Golem , time for a pop quiz mr 101. What does Title Nine say? - "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation, in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Do you take that to mean that rapists must not be excluded? After all, can't be denied on the basis of sex.
That is exactly wrong. In Heller v US the Supreme Court held that the "militia" wording in no way restricts a private citizen's right to bear or own arms.
Youi keep saying that, but every time I bring you to the thread where you get the chance to prove it, you change the subject. THIS thread is about the historical background that led to approving the 2nd A as we see it today. Have something to comment, rebut, address, ... ? No? You just wanted to say "I'm so bright", right? Well.. you said it! So thanks for playing...
This thread is about the 2nd A as written and as intended to be interpreted by the framers. If you want to discuss anything else, open a thread.
This is about the 2nd A. The 2nd A doesn't limit, grant, confer, remove... or in any way even address the right of a private citizen to own firearms. It's just not an issue they felt needed to be addressed. So they didn't. In other words, even though that is one of the few historical factoids that the Heller decision is right about, it's irrelevant to anything related to the point of this thread.
Well @Golem, you did not want to discuss "Necessary and Proper" either. What's that matter? Have you not covered "Necessary and Proper" in another thread that you started that you would like to link? Because if you can't use "necessary and proper" as a basis for violating the right to self defense, the liberty to defend oneself in any manner necessary, and proper second amendment rights enumerated in the constitution, then what are you basing your regulation upon if nothing but your own whims?
I don't see anyone supporting your claims. The historical context was that the founders had just used privately owned arms to help overthrow a centralized authoritarian monarchy that sought to disarm the citizenry. On top of that, the founders believed in natural law and the concept of natural rights. Put that all together and what do you get? a historical context that would not tolerate the creation of a centralized government capable or given the power to disarm the citizenry
so the "right of the citizens to keep and bear arms" does not address the right to own firearms? OMG this is a comedy routine
