Hmm.. where did I "refuse"? I evaluated the opposing point of view, called it stupid, and quantified that by demonstrating Stevens had a penchant for investing in stupid ideas. That isn't a refusal, that's call actively calling balls and strikes as it were...
Hmmm, let's see. Between your opinion and that of a former SCJ which has more weight? Which is founded on a greater understanding of the law? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
How would you even know? You can't craft a decent argument most days. And you failed here. Given that Stevens had to write a decent, he wasn't able to overcome the ruling, was he. His argument failed on the most basic level to be contextually correct, so his perspective didn't prevail. I know it scares you that your brand of tyranny cannot be expected to triumph either, regardless of your willingness to advocate for it every day on these forums. You seem fragile when confronted with the truth. Perhaps you can work on that....
Oddly, I feel a great sense of comfort around armed LEO's or a group of armed men, not unlike a baby elephant at the ankles of the mighty herd. Not that I sense no cause to comport to civility. But that along the course, I am safe.
His perspective not prevailing has less to do with its merits and more to do with the composition of the court. A composition that would have favored Stevens' opinion had the SC not handed the 2000 election to Shrub.
again, it is. read it. You really don't seem to understand that the dissenting opinion is absolutely meaningless.
Oddly you still cannot reconcile the fact that J Steven's opinion wasn't shared. Like many liberals, his theory isn't founded in the law, but in his desire to effect change, and in this case, tyranny.
If it’s so out of date why aren’t states clamoring for a convention or lobbying their congresscritters to pass legislation so 3/4 of states can ratify? You really think there are less than 13 states opposed to repeal?
Incorrect. The version by the House of the 2nd A added "composed of the body of the people" after the word "militia" to Madison's original draft. This was amply discussed and discarded. Federalists decided to follow Washington's and Hamilton's concern that it would be impractical. Instead the view that militias should be composed, following Washington's proposal, only of a select group of young men. In Federalist 29, Hamilton explained that a “well-regulated” militia should be a select one, because it would be impossibly expensive and burdensome to include the whole male population.
Yep! If you signed up to the militia, you would definitely need a gun. Just like when you sign up to any military force. The 2nd A guaranteed that the right to have those guns in order for the defence (sic) of a free state, Adding references to personal use in the 2nd A were voted down and discarded. This was already explained on the OP. Did you not read it? The 2nd A has nothing to do with who provides the weapons. The only part of the constitution that addresses that is Article 1, Section 8, clauses 16 which authorizes congress to provide them. I don't "suppose". Nor did the framers "suppose". Instead of "supposing", what I do is research.
I generally agree. Seems that prior to the Constitution, virtually all political power was held by State legislative bodies. Thirteen different sovereign countries (the former colonies who fought the Revolution) was a major problem with the Articles of Confederation...i.e. it was not a United States of America, it was a confederation of separate nations. The purpose of the Constitution was to resolve this problem between the States and to create "a more perfect union," with which to deal with disputes between the states and in foreign policy. That also required shifting away from reliance on state militias and creating "a standing army" with which to exercise the supreme sovereignty of federal system over that of state sovereignty, in dealing with foreign powers and Native Americans in our westward expansion. Many, already successful within the state legislative system (such as Patrick Henry), felt the federalists challenged their powers (it did) and opposed the Constitution (two of the Virginia delegation refused to sign the final draft). The founders who signed the Constitution foresaw this potential split and called for the relatively weak Congress to submit the Constitution to special conventions of delegates to special individual state conventions for ratification, rather than vote on it by the existing Congress itself, with the argument that it should be submitted to "the people" themselves, the basis of ALL sovereignty. The anti-federalists countered this scheme, by the federalists, with the claim that the lack of a people's bill of rights, was evidence that the Constitution/Federalists ignored "the people," and was reason to reject ratification. Ratification was tenuous. Madison (and the federalists) countered by agreeing that a Bill of Rights would be the first amendments to the ratified Constitution. That promise was instrumental in securing ratification. One of Washington's first acts as President was to federalize several state militias for the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania. That worked reasonably well, but the subsequent War of 1812 (largely resolved when the British decided it wasn't worth the effort, and had that conclusion proven by the military blunder in the Battle of New Orleans, fought AFTER the peace treaty had been signed), made the need for a standing army apparent, to ward-off foreign attacks and to support westward expansion. The formation of a standing army (supplemented by the federalization of state militias when needed) lessened the need for militias and "the right to bear arms." The D.C. v Heller decision pretty much destroyed that right, replacing it with the right to own guns, while simultaneously retaining the right of states (and the Supreme Court) to regulate the "right to bear arms," on a case by case basis.
You seem to want to keep inserting process that wasn't there. No one "signed up for" militias. They were the responsibility of everyone. No signup required. And hence, when dissolved, no additional need to suddenly "give up" your arms. Your interpretation is ridiculous. The founders, as noted, and subsequently cited for veracity NEVER intended folks not to be armed. And since the militia didn't supply you with a weapon, you're argument is absurd. Folks enjoy the ability to have arms because they are expected to dendend themselves and their territory against attacks. It is ludicrous of you to determine that folks would thus be "Supplied with" or "given" weapons by a militia. One, since the militia isn't a standing one, how would they provide weapons? From where would they get them? On who's behalf would they be maintained if not by the citizens? And frankly, the last assertion is perhaps the most egregious here. You didn't research anything. You went out looking for confirmation, and you assumed that you'd found it, without actually doing any research to the contrary, and here you are trying to peddle this BS as if you had some authority because you claim you did some research.. Laughable. One hopes you don't try to peddle this in the auspices of scholarly work, as it would be summarily rejected for the BS it is.
Cool, so when the Republicans form a militia, can they come and take the guns of anyone that isn't part of the militia?
but we know this is false, as your claims have been shown to be quite incorrect in all 3 of these threads.
Utter nonsense. The author of the above has it completely backwards not uncommon with second amendment haters.
The real history 101 Your wordsmithing has been tried thousands of times for over 200 years and has failed in every court including the SCOTUS 100% of the time. So who are these experts you are relying on to try and make such an argument?
The events leading up the the second amendment are well known. Your position opposing private gun ownership would have to come from the believe that events in history can never occur again here. I would think that our previous president would be a wake up call when it comes to government abuse of power.
