The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

Dude we don't want people murdered the same law already applies to guns, knives, baseball bats, and golf clubs. Don't murder people.

 

If the "unorganized militia" is your defense...it only concerns males under 45.

None others.

If you think the Dick Act is unconstitutional then you would need a SCOTUS test because as of now it is law.

Which of course is why Scalia peeled "A Well Regulated Militia" out of the 2A. That was a fight he didn't want to have

 

On that basis anyone who shoots another person is subject to trial. And who is or is not a criminal and who is or is not acting in self defense is determined by a jury. You shoot an under cover cop you are very like;y to find yourself on death row someplace ehatever flargantly silly mehodolgy you use to justify that act.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

of course, the best solution is to disarm the police and arm the populace as per the 2d Amendment

having said that the quicker solution for now is that the law be changed so that the standard of self defense be precisely the same for cops as it is for ordinary people - if a cop approaches you and you are in fear for your life, you should have the right to open fire on the cops

the jury should be charged with holding you to precisely the same standard as that of anyone else

I see nothing in the Constitution that would hold one class of people over another - on that basis such a reform would easily pass constitutional muster

 

I have already offered that as a solution:






so far, forum right wingers have not given this their endorsement

 

The Dick Act was a federal law which designated that all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 were members of the "unorganized militia". The age and gender designations were in keeping with the customs of the time. However - and this is important - nothing in the statute prohibits a state, or the federal government, from organizing a militia that may include women and people over 45. Basically, if you're an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, Uncle Sam is looking at you saying, "You're in it." But the law is not saying no one else may be in it.

If our country ever were in such dire straits that we needed to organize the "unorganized militia", no doubt the citizens would provide the weapons. All of this is consistent with the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", and that that right "shall not be infringed."

In a worst case scenario, we the people shall be the final arbiters in maintaining order or repelling an enemy. In other countries, if their military fails, they're helpless.

 

The law is saying none other exists.

A court challenge would likely change the gender requirement but not the age requirement and that would be a loser for gun nuts

 

I'm 62. Are you saying I'm too old, mister? That's age discrimination!

When the North Koreans land on the fair shores of my Pacific Northwest, I'm going to be on a cliff overlooking my beaches cutting them down.

Too old? To hell with that!

Seth

 

Hey..get that court challenge going but you have hit on the problem with the Dick Act and the unorganized militia claim, as well as the reason Scalia chose to pretend that "A Well Regulated Militia" wasn't part of the 2A

 

In the posts I've made on this thread, I think I have adequately defended the right of the People to keep and bear arms using the militia argument. However, the framers - God bless 'em - put commas in the 2A, I think by design.

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.

With or without a militia, I think their intended meaning is perfectly clear.

 

Nothing in the second amendment suggests disarming the police any more than it suggests disarming anyone else.

 

Contact the people at Armslist.com and they will tell you how to purchase 120mm ammo for your tank.

 

Back to Scalia's fraudulent attempt to claim that words in the 2A aren't really there?

Whatever.

The inconvenient phrase "A Well Regulated Militia being Necessary.." IS there and the framers were not in the habit of just randomly spewing words. That phrase is there to explain why that which follows...is there...obviously

 

Of course not. I never argued that it did.

It simply only protects gun rights as they pertain to the militia

 

Misleading, this map includes accidental and suicide, try

Countdown of the top 30 cities in the U.S. with the highest murder rates – 2017

 

Wrong. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal govt, it does not grant rights to the people. The Bill of Rights provides examples of rights, it is not an all inclusive list of the rights of the people.

Even if the 2nd Amendment is solely related to the militia, it does not restrict the rights of a person to own firearms.

 

Look at you, calling the kettle black.

 

I don't agree. The framers could have written, "Members of a militia may possess firearms." Or, "The government may allow members of the militia to possess firearms." Or, "The possession of firearms is a privilege granted at the discretion of the government."

But no. That's not what they wrote.

 

As do the militias of today.

 

Or, you could learn facts.

Odd that you would refer to men deciding to protect their country from tyranny "beta" while simultaneously opposing the foundation of how such protection comes about.

Might want to lookin the mirror their bud.

 

NO for about the forty-fifth time it protects gun rights of the individual so that a useful militia might be created on the spur of the minute at need.

 

Each state had a national guard, comprised of self proclaimed "citizen soldiers". Reinforcing this militia, controlled by governor of each state, are their civilian and countrymen.

The national guard has allof the same equipment and personnel as the standing army.

Considering the National Guard, and the remaining able bodied men, these numbers far out size the standing army.

So.... this whole, give up the guns because we could never defend ourselves from tyranny is bullshit, proclaimed by those same people who have forgotten history and support a large central government.

 

Excellent post and we are not in any fundamental disagreement.

No one wants to repeal 2A either.

What is needed is what the majority of We the People want.

And that is the WELL REGULATED part of the 2A to apply to our nation as a whole.

Everyone can have their guns as long as they comply with the government OF the People and FOR the People REGULATING those firearms to ENSURE that the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are not in jeopardy because of a LACK of enforced regulations.

 

If only they would have known that you and Scalia were going to twist their words into a pretzel huh?