I accept the premise of arms for self defense, but SCOTUS has ruled that it can be limited, by law, to the home and to the type of arms, and that the right is not absolute. The 'right to bear arms' 'shall not be infringed', and the grammar of that is clear, what shall not be infringed? The right and only the right. But, as Scalia stated in Heller, that right is not absolute and that, as far back as the 19th century, there have been regulations on conceal and carry, etc. Where 2a types get confused is where they assume 'infringed' equals 'regulation', that's not what it means at all, because what shall not be infringed goes only to the right to bear arms, i.e., JUST the right, nothing more, NOT the right to own as many guns or of any type. If the law limited you to ownership of two guns of common use for self defense and enough ammo for a day, your second amendment right has been fulfilled ( though the law doesn't limit it to that degree, though it could ). The point is, military type assault weapons are not weapons of 'common use' for self defense. Read the Heller decision, yet that is what 2a-ers are arguing. See pages 810 & 812 https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=uclr As for 'standing armies tyrannizing the people', that concept is pretty much moot. Ain't gonna happen, and even if it did, your guns aren't going stop tanks, etc. I mean, can we think of one instance, where 'the people' have managed to even thwart something as small as a government swat team? Pray tell if it were the full force of the military, no 'we the people' would have a chance, so that idea is absurd.
This thread has allowed us to debunk long held myths in the right-wing dogma. Yes! You enlisted in the militias, and you received training in military tactics, and military discipline. Obviously you can't receive training if you don't sign up. They were trained, they were subject to a military chain of command, and they were paid for their services. Not if you were using your own weapons. Only if they had been provided by Congress. That has nothing to do with the 2nd A, though. You are obviously responding without having read the OP. I tried to make it as short as possible. But I even started with a list of four things this thread is NOT about. At a minimum you should have read those four simple caveats. They could buy them. Or Congress could provide it. Hopefully you will read the OP before your next post... yes?
The fact that you can't rebut the arguments in this thread and instead try to change the subject is further confirmation that I'm right. So... thank you for your help.
There was no such "right" ascribed to the 2nd A before Scalia decided to legislate from the bench. Before that, United States v Miller and all subsequent standing court decisions interpreted it correctly. And I'm sure it will return to normal once a sane Supreme Court majority that doesn't look well to justices legislating form the bench, reverses the Scalia legislation. But that's a different topic. I just wanted to answer your question. Do you have anything to say about THIS topic?
I'm glad we agree. And my position opposing private gun ownership has nothing to do with this thread. The fact that it helps support it is purely coincidental.
your premise was refuted on the first page. We are on page 4 now, so all that is left is to remind you that your interpretation has no basis in law or the rules of grammar, as you have been shown.
You share Mao's position on gun control. That colors every word you read and write. Many throughout history did not have the luxury of having your position.
So there you have it, folks. You better get your guns out because Mao is out to get ya! But don't you dare accuse them of fear-mongering!
You provided nothing but your opinion in your OP. I asked you to provide your so called experts you relied upon (as you stated) but you can't do that. Your argument has a long history of defeat. You can't post or find a single court ruling that supports your argument. All you offer is political opinion and wordsmithing. When you find a court, ruling, or law that supports your theories, let me know. Until then, you have no confirmation of anything. Not to mention that the Constitution and Every court ruling in history going back over 200 years confirms you are wrong. So who are these experts that support your theories?
Obviously you didn't read the OP. I provided NO opinion of my own. And I posted a LINK to where I got all this from. You have illustrated why right wingers are such an easy pray for people like Trump: they read a headline and think that it all ends there. It's why Trump had to become Republican to run. Despite him not being a conservative, he would never have made it as a Democrat. The more right-wingers show up who can't rebut the actual arguments, the stronger the case made on the OP becomes.
Yup, sure do. On June 28, 2010, a deeply divided Supreme Court Supreme Court upheld gun-ownership rights within homes on a national basis, expanding on a 2008 decision applying to the District of Columbia. In 2008, the SCOTUS decided in District of Columbia v. Heller held that a D.C. law that restricted unlicensed functional handguns within homes violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Heller majority opinion. (Thats not legislating from the bench, sorry.) He just wrote the DECIDED opinion. His quote based on their vote, “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” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...d-supreme-court-rules-on-the-second-amendment
Redefine my post and argue with the position you created. Didn't see that coming. While fear of dead dictators is not rational, his shadow still lingers over China and there are many willing to carry on his legacy. My son lived in China and it is just something that is not discussed.
There are two separate and very different issues. The first is the Second Amendment. In spite of all your claims, all the evidence points to the fact that citizens were granted the freedom to own and bear arms whether they belonged to a militia or not. The second issue is likely the most important and is rarely discussed. There are around four hundred million privately owned guns in the US. A very large proportion of that four hundred million guns are owned by the criminal element. It does not make any difference how many laws you pass, most will not give up their guns. It will likely be decades before all those guns could be rounded up, if it is possible at all.. The result of any law restricting firearms or types of firearms will likely only result in law abiding citizens giving up their weapons and the criminals keeping theirs. Of course, you will always have the nut jobs like in Atlanta or Boulder. Both were certifiably crazy and other Constitutional amendment prevent us from doing much about them. Universal background checks would not have prevented either. In spite of the horrors of Atlanta and Boulder, they are small relative to what takes place by the criminal element each and every day in our larger cities.
Its so easy to tell when the left loses their arguments. They always go back to Trump. lol Talking about not staying on topic. Your United States v Miller argument has nothing to do with what you are trying to pass off. That case was not about what a militia is or the right to keep and bear arms. It was about owning an unregistered illegal firearm. Basically, a sawed off shotgun. Thier ruling was the Second Amendment did not guarantee defendants right to keep and bear a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length. Not that the Second amendment did not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe you should read your own claims before providing them. Since that has nothing to do with your claims, I provided you with the current ruling against any claim you have made.
You compare me to Mao, the worst murderer in history... and you didn't see it coming that I would make fun of you???? Really? He don't know me too well, do he! Just so you know: when you say something idiotic like that to attack me, only one of two things will happen: either I will ignore it, or I will make fun of your attack. Now you know....
The right to keep and bear arms is logically threefold, one for our own self-defense, another for our own survival (hunting game), etc., and last and most important of all, to protect us from the government itself. In terms of who the militia is, "We the People," are the militia. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson.
This thread is only about one: the 2nd A as written. And my points and arguments are on the OP. And what I have seen from the right is many (like you) trying to change the subject. But nobody rebutting... or even addressing them. To me that means that they can't address them because they have no arguments to counter them. And that further strengthens their validity. Thanks for your help... Every little bit counts.
I did no such thing. I compared positions and you have already admitted that my comparison was accurate. Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.
That is right. Ignore the most important one and the one which nothing can be done about it. Concentrate on the other one which is a feel good measure of no use whatsoever.
but you know this is a false statement. your arguments have been addressed, and refuted in all 3 threads. your problem is you seem to think when you edit out peoples posts, that the original post you quoted also loses the text you omitted in your quote. The omitted texts you keep deleting directly address and refute your claims.
No you did not enlist in militias you showed up for the meetings if any of your own choice. Militia came in companies they elected their leaders and interestingly enough usually met at the local taverns. You brought your own weapon and ammunition. Not infrequently ammo wasn't interchangeable from one piece to the other. Nor were parts. This was especially true on the frontier. Where rifles were much more common. Also on the frontier every adult male was expected to attend militia meetings. This was less true in major towns though if one wanted to get involved in local politics showing up for militia meetings was a good way to get your foot in the door.
Here's why: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-big-myth-of-the-second-amendment.586341/
Of course it was! The 2nd A was EXACTLY what the case was about. So it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. ???? First you say it's not about the 2nd A....then you say it was. Make up your mind. Are you even paying attention? Of course it's not about the right to keep and bear arms. That's exactly the point! This supposed individual right to own guns for personal use has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. It's what this whole thread is about. You need to start over. Start by reading the OP. Which you obviously didn't read. And if, after that, you have something to contribute... fine. If not, then that means you are yet another right-winger that is unable to rebut the statements on the OP. Which increases their credibility. If that is so, all that is left is for me to thank you for your help in making my case.
Oh! You're still here? I was skipping your posts. I mean, just like this one, they have no substance. I opened this one just because I was curious to see if you had actually decided to participate in the debate. Obviously not. So....
