Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

OK, sure, its my 'personal belief' that the militia is necessary for self defense, and thus its necessary for the security and freedom of the state because its necessary for the security and freedom of the individuals that make up the state, and thats why the 'the militia' just means self defense. What other purpose could it mean in that context?

And BTW- we have the means to change the constitution. Banning nukes and artillery constitutionally would be a cinch because the required support exists. Also because the required support exists, no one makes a big stink about them having been banned unconstitutionally. Maybe they should be making a stink about that. But the 'we cant ban rocket launchers' shtick isn't convincing anyone of anything ...unless you're actually pissed that you cant have rocket launchers.

...are you?

 

He's on record wanting to seriously infringe on any weapons that can be used for mass murder-which basically means any firearm and swords etc

 

Indeed, individuals make up the state.
But individuals are not a militia.

militia
noun
mi·li·tia mə-ˈli-shə


plural militias
Synonyms of militia


1
a
: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b
: a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3
: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology

 

the only definition of militia that matters is the one laid out in US Code- all able bodied males aged 17-45 who are or intend to become citizens of the united states.

Even if theres just one, that one is still the militia. And until participation is mandated and contrary regulation is enforced, then its an individual voluntary choice, so in the US, individuals are the militia.

And since no politician's career could survive trying to enforce exclusion of women, the disabled or the elderly, then they are the militia too.

 

it is really not relevant since the second talks about the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Even the FDR lapdog subservient supreme court in the miller case, didn't adopt a "militia rights" argument

 

If it was about safety, then please explain how the UK has more murders now than it did before all your gun laws.

If we were in "musket days", our civilian citizens would still have the same weapons the British soldiers had when we defeated them.

And you're wrong. The world has not moved on from the need for an armed civilian populace.

Ask the Ukrainians.

 

Can't let facts get in the way of your feelings after all.

 

Good thing we outsmarted the British by forming French alliances, otherwise you'd be speaking German right about now.

 

~ The direction the U.S. government has been going lately makes me willing to let individuals own rocket launcher if they so desire. I will take my chances with the "gun nut" next door than trust the government to obey the U.S. Constitution .
It is likely not possible but I would like a federal mandate that every home residence must have a working firearm.

~ Name one country that has ...

 

Willfully and intentionally refusing to even READ the rulings before discussing them as if you understand them = not engaging with the discussion in good faith.

 

Yes violations of the constitution happen. This is what the court system is for. Various cases are working their way through the court system against various portions of the NFA.

You have a very strange view of how the legal system works, much less constitutional law. Though I suppose since you admittedly refuse to read the cases you're discussing, its not so strange.

 

You're plainly wrong here. Your first clue should be that you're parroting Joe Biden's asinine idea that you couldn't own cannon.

Cannon are protected by the 2nd amendment. Cannon are designed to attack buildings, ships, and areas. They are rather useful for part of the civilian self defense contemplated by the 2nd amendment: defense of nation, defense of property, defense of self and others.
The Marque and Reprisal Clause, which the Founders used in place of a regular navy the same way they used militia levies surrounded by existing cadre in place of a regular army, contemplates a populace that needs only bare permission to go reave enemy ships of the line. Permission to shoot first, not to purchase arms or even to possess them.
This is historic fact.
Pass your claim through the Bruen test. Find a historic analog banning the possession of cannon, as the DOJ or any gun control proponent must do.

 

His AG had to point out to the panel that came up with the NFA that they couldn't ban ALL arms or put under the NFA ALL arms. That would be unconstitutional.
There was much tut tutting about that in committee.

 

we will agree to disagree. you cannot bear a cannon. federal laws banning cannons are violations of the tenth amendment

 

he wanted to ban handguns first of all. Lots of his democrat toadies in the legislative bodies were probably packing

 

Google "cannon carry". Now feel silly that you are ignorant of historic fact while discussing a constitutional provision that requires reference to historic fact to pass a law.
Further: A laws rocket is intentionally man portable. As is a bazooka. As is a mortar.
Still further: An attempt to take civilian owned cannon and powder stores was what LITERALLY precipitated the 'shot heard 'round the world'.
You're simply demonstrably wrong.


You want gun control: Dig up a historic analog as per Bruen. Do disregard the fact that every libel (admiralty not defamation) begins with a recitation of the ship's description, which includes armament. Yes, armaments present even without a letter of marque or a reprisal. Perfectly legally.

Show me a ban on cannon or move on counsel.

 

Its odd they settled on short barrels. In point of fact, a great many dems who crusaded on gun control at the fed level were scrupulous to point out they had ABSOLUTELY no intention of banning 'the shopkeeps friend' ye olde SBS.
Literally the dude who sponsored the NFA campaigned on not banning short barreled shotguns.

 

I have studies the second amendment going on fifty years. That includes two degrees from an Ivy League Law school, You seem confused over this

1) that people were allowed to own cannon in no way implicates the second amendment

2) there was never a federal ban on cannons at any time relevant to the establishment of the bill of rights

3) the second amendment would not be raised when cannons were banned. Right now I believe the ban is on the shells. I believe civilians can own cannons that shoot solid round balls similar to the ones used in the Revolution.

4) LAWS rockets are considered ordnance or artillery

bans on those implicate the tenth amendment.

 

and suppressors being included was a bone thrown to federal game wardens who tired of starving poor people using suppressors to poach deer, only to see their neighbors acquit them in a state court where the judges were elected by the same people serving as jurors,

 

Tits in a can man, your argument from authority has struck me down. However shall I go on now that you've referenced *shudders in defeat* THE IVY LEAGUE!!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??!!??!?!? Of the huge manatee!!!

Not.

I've been studying the 2nd amendment since childhood, I also hold an undergraduate degree in Philosophy with a minor in Political science where constitutional law, political philosophy, and legal philosophy sections took up the majority of my curriculum relevant electives, as well as a law degree where again I focused my electives on constitutional law issues to include my independent study writing requirement being purely 2nd amendment focused, as well as a current license to practise law in both state and federal courts.

1) yes, it does. Those are arms IE weapons. They're bearable, see cannon carry, and they're part of the nation's history and tradition of legal firearm ownership see Shot heard round the world.
2) A fact which I am aware of meaning bans don't pass Bruen because they lack a historic analog. Sometimes people with legal training ask questions they know the answer to because the answer is bad for their opponent's argument and they want the opponent to say it out loud. We call this 'examination' in the practise of law. You should know that.
3) Indeed you can own cannons, and they were never banned during the founding which means no historic analog exists to cite to ban them now. And since cannons are not distinguishable from mortars or rockets in your rule (attacks buildings, ships and does AOE), the fact that cannons cannot be banned means rockets can't either.
4) Laws rockets are bearable arms in the same vein as cannons are.

Bans on those may also implicate the tenth amendment, they certainly implicate the second.

 

I deny your claims. I do not believe the arms that citizens Keep and Bear include ordnance or artillery.

can you find any case or writings that support your claim as to the intent of the second amendment.

 

Reminds me of the best lawyer joke I ever heard.

You've gotta understand it was related to me by a totally straight laced, old money, husband of a federal judge.

In a perfect rural welsh accent.

A farmer found himself banged up for the alleged buggery of a sheep at the witness and complaint of his neighbor's wife. His trial was set, and he resolved to find a barrister to defend him.
No such man would take the case.
Much afeared, he went down to the pub for a pint to think it over.
He relates his sad tale of nary a barrister to be had to stand his champion.
A young man, a local boy [pronounced bai], steps in to the pub to great cheers. It seems he's just passed the bar and been authorized to practise. The bartender introduces his customers and they take a pint and pie and talk it over.
I cannae promise ye a result, but I can promise ye that I can pick a good jury, says the barrister.
Fair enough says the farmer, and the bargain was struck.

At the day of trial, the barrister picks his jury of good local farmers.
The kings prosecutor has the farmwife on the stand.
*changes voice to prosecutor, more formal tone*
Madam please tell us what you witnessed on that terrible night
*woman's shrill whine*
O nay I cannae!! Tis too terrible
*prosecutor, sternly*
Madam I shall remind ye that ye're under oath! Tell us what occurred!
*woman*
Well.... I saw the defendant..... he were bothering with a sheep milord! Wantonly enjoying himself with that poor creature!
*prosecutor*
Did you see anything else madam!!?
*woman*
Well..... after he were finished the sheep turned around and it... well.... it licked his testicles!

The jury nods sagely, and the foreman remarks to his fellows "Aye gentlemen, ye know the good ones will do that"

 

While I certainly can, I think you misunderstand how it works procedurally.

The 2a is an unambiguous statement, I have no cause to consult anything further.
In relevant part it reads ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Arms means weapons. Cannons are bearable. So are laws rockets. So are mortars. Ergo they are bearable arms and therefore per se protected by a plain reading of the 2nd on its very face.


You're the one who wants to have recourse to vagueness.

1st: explain how the 2a is vague.
2nd: explain YOUR source that shows the ordnance dichotomy was intended by the founders


Further: In point of fact YOU are the one who initiated the ordnance claim in this thread.
You don't get to have me back up your claim or cause me to refute your claim. Rather instead you started it, so you must go first.

 

I find his username homongously ironic. Haven't several cases established that the "Keep and Bear" phrase applies to weapons is common use for self defense, not tanks, fighter jets, or nuclear submarines?

 

I suggest the tenth amendment is more appropriate