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

Humongous. You realize there is spell check in the forum right?

Common use for lawful purpose, 1, and 2, those libels I mentioned earlier clearly show that historically one of those lawful purposes was defense of self and property on the high seas.
So you're welcome for the education. Glad I could help burn out some of that foul ignorance.

 

I suggest that its your claim, you back it up.

Additionally: You seem to have totally failed to respond to literally anything I said. Despite the forum rules regarding backing up claims one initiates. Shall I start calling you golem? Eh?

Here it is below so you can try again and actually follow through this time:

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.

 

yes, and there is a rather influential discussion here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts

 

Spell check didn't offer any alternatives.

Nah, that post was Humongously wrong too.

 

Do you actually need an alternative? Sound it out.

Says the guy who quotes scotus wrong. Its in common use for lawful purpose. Not in common use for self defense.
O? So you're on record claiming that cannon was not owned by persons and placed on ships?

 

do you claim that the federal government was given any power to regulate private citizens' ownership of cannon, LAWs TOWs or Stingers?

 

They have no power to regulate private citizens ownership or possession of any arms which may be borne[ to bear].
Each of your examples is a bearable arm.

Therefore: No, they have do not have authority to regulate such things.

Further, explicitly, any such attempt would violate the 2nd amendment prima facie terms. Post incorporation a state is just as bound as the feds.

Bruen lists the only exception IE restrictions common during the founding era are understood to be not what the founders thought was an 'infringement'.

As you have already admitted: There was no such restriction on the private ownership or possession of cannon.
Therefore there is no historic analog present, and neither the states nor the feds can pass Bruen on this issue.
Ergo if you want to make the ordnance distinction, see Article V and pick a process for amendment. Then go through the process.

 

tenth amendment is the proper bill of rights restriction.

 

I suggest that its your claim, you back it up.

Additionally: You seem to have totally failed to respond to literally anything I said. Despite the forum rules regarding backing up claims one initiates. Shall I start calling you golem? Eh?

Here it is below so you can try again and actually follow through this time:

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.


The more you dodge these points, the more obvious it becomes that it is because you know I'm right but are now embarrassed.
Its literally the same thing golem does.
Is that where you want to be when Jesus comes back? Sitting in the same boat as golem?
Do better.

 

~ That is not correct. Try again ...

 

Sorry. No. Even your definition says 'all able bodied', not any able bodied.

 

why don't you tell me-I love people who claim to be pro gun rights who nit pick other pro gun rights advocates and are actually wrong. What do you think the underlying natural right was? Remind me what law school gave you a degree

from that decision-almost 150 years old

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

 

you already admitted that nothing in article one section eight gives the federal government any power to restrict private citizens from owning any type of weapon.

thus it's a tenth amendment issue

 

Cite the regulation or code that mandates I must be organized into a group to be considered militia.

...and ftr, unless one joins the National guard or is pressed into service by the governor, one is technically (legally, according to US code) 'unorganized militia').

What do you think 'unorganized' means in that context? It partially means NOT IN A GROUP.

 

their pathetic argument would only have merit if the second said "the right of the MILITIA" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"/. When it says the right of the PEOPLE-militia membership no longer has ANY relevance to the restrictions upon a government that was never given any Article One Section Eight power in the first place

 

I never discussed it before nor now. So there's nothing to read.

 

I have never discussed cases. I am not interested in them.

 

The definition of 'militia'. There's no mandates.

Where are you getting unorganized? The definition says organized in the definition.

 

what relevance does that have to the individual right that is guaranteed by the second?

 

No it doesnt. US Code defines the 'organized militia' as the National Guard and the 'unorganized militia' as basically everyone who isn't in the National Guard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

As far as laws in the US are concerned, US Code supercedes any other definitions.

 

I don't know what 'the militia' of unorganized members are.
But it does say 'members'. Plural. You alone, by yourself, is not a militia.

 

I am 'unorganized militia' until I am 'organized' (activated, called/pressed to service by the state). 'Organize' in military terminology means to activate to service, place into the command structure and set to a task. Being 'unorganized' in the context of the militia means I am not in active service, I have not been set to a task, I am not subject to the command structure and I am not in a unit or 'group.' But I am still technically, legally, the militia.

 

LOL, no, you are not a plural person.
Even by everything you've provided, militia is NOT a single person.

Military terminology didn't exist when the 2A was written. In fact, military did not exist at that time. It relied on citizens forming together to unite into a militia.

You can never convince anyone that a singular person will ever be a militia.

 

I dont have to convince anyone. US Code says I'm 'unorganized militia' without being in any group. Its literally the law. If you'd like to propose that the 'unorganized militia' is somehow a group, that would require some sort of logical demonstration, like what is that group's purpose, how do they interact differently with eachother than those outside the group. You know, like what makes it a group? How are those in that group different than those outside the group. Without any that, you're just calling it a group without it having any meaning.

 

It does not. You could be a member of one, but you, yourself are not a militia.

I already told you, no clue what the ' unorganized militia ' is referring to. A conclusion would be based on definition 1, is anything that's not National Guard or Naval.

But militia, by definition is a 'group'.

From your previous link:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.