A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Washington, DC's latest attempt to limit residents' right to carry guns in public. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held in a 2–1 decision that public carrying of firearms is a "core" Second Amendment right, and that the District's regulations amounted to a "total ban" on exercising that right.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b0583da9-2f35-36a6-800c-f5782c15b60d/ss_a-dc-federal-court-just-ruled.html

Thank You President Trump. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

I don't support concealed carry, except in limited circumstances.  Open carry is the way to go.

My wife has a license to carry.  I would not wish her to be open about it, she is a woman and some punks may decide they need her sidearm and are willing to attempt to take it.  In her case, it is better to have it concealed.(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

A right for whites only. Blacks may still be shot on sight for carrying any sort of gun, even a bb gun.

The 2nd Amendment applies to all citizens, white, black, brown or *gray.

gray in the USA.  grey in England.

Making America great again.    (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Tell that to all the dead blacks gunned down by cops for daring to touch a gun even in open carry states. And tell that to the silent nra who does not like to say much when blacks are gunned down for touching guns.

Heck, the guy in MN did not even touch his gun, all he did was mention he cc and bang! Shot dead. ANd the cop won a free vacation for doing it. What did nra say? NOTHING.

Making amerikkka white again.

Yes, we should punish rouge cops, severely.

Yeah this is great.

Let's make America DANGEROUS again.


If you've noticed that cops are shooting innocent people already just because the cops are nervous

wait until every other asshole walking down the street is showing a gun.

You don't even need to be out in public.

You can be completely innocent, safe at home, answering your own front door,

and get shot by cops.

JUST BECAUSE there are guns everywhere already.


Mississippi police kill man serving warrant at wrong house
By Ray Downs   |   July 26, 2017

Police officers said they were forced to shoot Lopez when he opened his front door
and his pet pit bull charged at them.
Police said they opened fire at the dog and saw Lopez holding a gun from behind his door.


Speaking on behalf of the Lopez family, Jordan Castillo, 23, told the Commercial Appeal
that Lopez's wife disputed the police version of events.

He said police began firing through a closed door
and that Lopez never picked up his firearm,
which she said was found by police in the usual spot he always keeps it in the living room.


"She said when he got up, she heard the footsteps all the way up to the door,
she heard the doorknob turn, and then after the doorknob turned it was just gunshots from there," Castillo said.


"Bullet holes suggest they shot through the door," Wells said.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/26/Mississippi-cops-kill-man-when-they-go-to-wrong-address-on-arrest-warrant/2221501051117/ (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/26/Mississippi-cops-kill-man-when-they-go-to-wrong-address-on-arrest-warrant/2221501051117/)

The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.   Embrace it as your own humanity and let freedom ring!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

the validity of gun regulations is also part of our constitutional laws chuck.

I guess we need a real gun violence epidemic to get through to Americans.

How many bodies will it take?

Meanwhile, Jeff Sessions wants to bust you, your kids and your neighbors for smoking pot.

Jeff Sessions should focus on real criminals. like the Clinton Crime Family.

How many bodies will it take?

Interesting question. 51,888,303 abortions hasn't changed our mind.

Don't pretend to be pro-life.

You're anti-abortion and pro-guns.

Unconstitutional gun laws are not valid gun laws!

Blacks benefit the most from the right to bear arms.  That's why liberals oppose the right of blacks from being able to own guns.  They don't want blacks to have the ability to defend themselves against liberal democrat lynch mobs.

Opposite of anti is pro
Opposite of abortion is life
anti-abortion=pro-life

Left the gun part out but as far as guns, law abiding citizens protecting their families, hunting for food (in areas that need culling) can't imagine anyone against that.

No, let's protect gun ownership rights, which will make America safer.


It would make people more civil.  An armed society is a polite society.

Yeah, because killing babies is pro-life.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)


Innocent life is protected by the lawful use of guns, so I see no inconsistency there.

How many bodies will it take?

How much are human rights worth?  Many brave men have died for them.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

____Amendment II, US Constitution



To: local5th, chuck_curtis, anchoragedan, duke_john, kensanIV, sine-qua-non, and pacifica

 Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly.



 

It came from the same place as separation of church and state hawk.

In this instance it was the SC that ruled it was an individual right.

they've also ruled that gun regulations are perfectly constitutional.    owning and carrying a gun is not an absolute right.

Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly.

That's not the place to look for it, or find it.   It is found in the same place the right to breath, live, smile, frown, etc is found.

If there's an Injun uprising, THEN you fatfuck rednecks can bring out your guns... if you are "well-regulated".

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.
__Amendment II, US Constitution


1965hawks: "Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms for their private use, or to carry arms--either openly or concealed."

local5th: "It came from the same place as separation of Church and State, 1965hawks"

You're talking out your ass again, local5th. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State.

chuck_curtis: "That's not the place to look for it, or find it."

You're absolutely correct, chuck_curtis! That's because, contrary to Scalia's judicial activism that gave us the unprecedented and illogical US Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with private ownership and use of firearms--even for self-defense-- or civilians carrying firearms, whether they are carried concealed or openly.

there's nothing to interpret about the church thing chuck.   The Constitution is clear on that.

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.
__Amendment II, US Constitution

The subject of this sentence is “right,” namely, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  The predicate (the action the subject is taking) is “shall not be infringed.”  “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is a nominative absolute.  It has a noun, but no verb.  Grammatically speaking, it has no bearing on the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

https://selfeducatedconservative.wordpress.com/2nd-amendment/

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.
__Amendment II, US Constitution

A parallel sentence to illustrate this relationship: “The weather being especially fine that day, Henry elected to leave home without an umbrella.” Who is the subject of this sentence? The weather? The day? No, of course not. This is a sentence about someone named Henry (whom I just decided at random is a woman) and her choice to keep her umbrella home, AND NOTHING ELSE. The part about the weather being nice? That explains why she made her decision, AND NOTHING ELSE.


Same thing with the militia clause. It explains why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, AND NOTHING ELSE.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article10507-the-bill-of-rights-and-teaching-it-wrong-html

hawkiepoo doesn't understand English well, Local.  Your explanation was quite thorough, an should resolve any problems he has.  Don't expect a "thank you" from him, though.

except there is no well regulated militia anymore.

but nobody's trying to take away your guns local.   The USC has also said that regulating your right to own a gun is constitutional.   The right to own and carry a gun has never been an unregulated right.

The People, that's the militia.

no, the people aren't a well regulated  militia.

Sure, they are.

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.

The last time the Supreme Court ruled more or less squarely on the question was in 1939, when it upheld the government’s authority to prosecute two men for carrying a sawed-off shotgun across the Oklahoma-Arkansas state line in violation of the National Firearms Act, which had been enacted just five years earlier.

A lower court had ruled that the new federal gun law (the same one that still bans private possession of machine guns without a special permit) violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed by an 8-0 vote. Justice James C. McReynolds wrote the opinion, saying:


U.S.  Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

you can have a gun.  but only the guns that are approved by the government.    You can't have an gun you want.

Where does the constitution say keeping and carrying guns can be prohibited?

I can't find it anywhere!

In fact it says the right CANNOT be infringed!

It doesn't matter what a court says it means,

its only matters what the authors said it means (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

It doesn't.   You can keep and carry a gun as long as you do it legally.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect the right to privacy and other rights, but they surely are rights, so all the arguments about finding the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution are irrelevant.

nobody says you can't own or carry a gun as long as you do it legally chuck.

except there is no well regulated militia anymore.

Since the militia part had nothing really to do with the 2nd amendment it really makes no difference.
                                                                                                                                       

I have a right to keep and bear arms as long as I don't willingly waive to the state, as you snowflakes are so willing to do.  At the end of the day, assertion and protection of your rights comes from within yourself.

What did you think "bear arms" means?

No it didn't.  It is expressly stated, unlike separation of church and state.

yes chuck you do have the right to own and carry a gun as long as you do so legally.

I don't think wvit knows what the term "regulated" means in the context in which it was written circa 1789.

Anyone who thinks that the 2nd doesn't protect the individual right to keep and bear arms needs to look at the arguments that the Constitution protects a right to an abortion.  You ain't got nothing over 2nd amendment arguments.

no the constitution doesn't say anyone has  the right to an abortion.   but it does say Americans have a right to privacy.

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

In addition, anyone who thinks that the 2nd doesn't protect the individual right to keep and bear arms needs to look at the arguments that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.  You ain't got nothing over 2nd amendment arguments.  There are no words in there to parse, even.

I agree with you chuck.  You and I have the right to own and carry a gun if we want as long as we do so legally.

I have a rights that are "self-evident" truth even if you snowflakes don't want to see it.

To: local5th, duke_john, and all the other misinformed gun nuts in this forum

in re: Replies #33, #34, and #35

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/

To: local5th, duke_john and all the other misinformed gun nuts in this forum

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/

To: chuck-curtis, local5th, anchoragedan, duke_john, kensanIV, sine-qua-non, and pacifica

in re: federal court's ruling carrying guns in public is a Second Amendment right

 http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

What, nothing from Home and Garden, hawkiepoo?

I take the Declaration of Independence more serious than postmodern hit pieces.

The 2nd amendment gives me the legal right to carry a firearm in any state of the union !

as long as you do so legally sine.

As long as there is a 2nd amendment I carry legally in any state! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

To: sine-qua-non

in re: reply #62

A photo purportedly displaying a gun warning below a “Welcome to Idaho” sign has been circulating on the Internet on blogs, message boards, and via email since at least 2013. While the “Welcome to Idaho” sign is real, the gun warning included with it is not.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/welcometoidaho.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/welcometoidaho.asp)

https://www.truthorfiction.com/idaho-sign-warns-crooks-gun-owners/ (https://www.truthorfiction.com/idaho-sign-warns-crooks-gun-owners/)

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/08/14/idahoroadsign/ (https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/08/14/idahoroadsign/)

http://wafflesatnoon.com/welcome-idaho-gun-warning-sign/ (http://wafflesatnoon.com/welcome-idaho-gun-warning-sign/)

anchoragedan: "What did you think 'bear arms' means?"


anchoragedan,

As used in the Second Amendment, the idiom "bear arms" means the same as it does in the Declaration of Independence.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high seas to bear Arms against their Country.


Thomas Jefferson






bear arms  to serve as a soldier.
World Book Dictionary, volume one, A-K  © 1992

bear arms  serve as a soldier
bear arms against  wage war on
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged  © 1993

bear arms  serve as a soldier
The New Short Oxford English Dictionary  © 2001

bear arms  to serve as a combatant in the armed forces 
Webster's New World Dictionary, Fifth Edition  © 2014

What did you think it means, anchoragedan?











 

Well, since the militia are defined as the People

A soldier Is defined as one of the People

The right to bear/carry arms is the People's right !

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Next question ?

Only an idiot could argue with that, Sine.

this whole premise is bullchit.  If they did suddenly declare NO GUNS FOR ANYONE BUT THE POLICE AND THE MILITARY.  And it PASSED by
Congress and became law.

WHO BELIEVES THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS AND ARE CRIMINAL...  Will actually turn in their weapons and become good little dims.

Yes Virginia, there is pie in the sky...just hang on.

you can have and carry guns in all American states as long as you do so legally.

(( As long as there is a 2nd amendment I carry legally in any state ))

Not in Illinois can you open carry.  even if you are just passing though...

Same in Blue Jersey.

that's because it's not legal.   you have to carry guns legally as your right to have and carry a gun isn't an absolute right.

wvit says something is legal if the law permits it.  What a brilliant statement!

(http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/man-in-dunce-cap.jpeg)

Well, since the militia are defined as the People A soldier Is defined as one of the People The right to bear/carry arms is the People's right ! [sic]



sine-qua-non,

The Second Amendment does not define the people as the militia. What it actually does is constitutionally prohibit the national government from enacting and enforcing any law(s) that would interfere with a state's constitutional right to maintain (keep) its legitimate (federally recognised) militia without due cause.

 The clever wording of the Second Amendment prohibits the central government to arbitrarily interfere with a state's right to arm its official militia, by making "bearing arms" (rendering military service) in a state-controlled militia a "right of the people." In 1790, the states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it protects the arms of their militias from arbitrary abuse by federal officials. For example, any attempt by the federal government to disarm a "well regulated militia"--a militia in strict compliance with federal and state militia laws (regulations)--would violate the right to serve (bear arms) in a state's legitimate militia, just as any attempt by the federal government to conduct warrantless searches and seizures would violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Your faulty reasoning and bogus argument has apparently fooled duke_john. But you should've realised by now that your bullshit doesn't fool me. 

 "this whole premise is bullchit.  If they did suddenly declare NO GUNS FOR ANYONE BUT THE POLICE AND THE MILITARY.  And it PASSED by Congress and became law. WHO BELIEVES THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS AND ARE CRIMINAL...  Will actually turn in their weapons and become good little dims." [sic]--kensanIV



kensanIV,

Truth is, what you posted above is bullshit; more precisely, it's a logical fallacy--a red herring. At issue here is the DC federal court's ruling, not the irrelevant and hypothetical rigmarole you posted above.

Yes 69 BirdShitforBrians, I've realized you can't be fooled with presenting facts
The militia is defined as the People, what else?  And a soldier is still a People, nothing else, sorry !
But yours and the lefts opinions are sacrosanct (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
- Antonin Scalia for the SCOTUS
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/)

from
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves
and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm
for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home.

And then all of our Benedict colleagues (after their reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment and ensuring that every terrorist/Nazi/racist/insane and general asshole has a gun or 200) wonder why shootings are the ONLY crime that has significantly increased in the last several decades.

local5th,

Explain how the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to bare arms just like the militia?



 

local5th: Diagram the sentence Hawk. Like we learned to do in the 6th grade. [sic]



local5th,

Did you also learn the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to bare arms when you were in sixth grade? And speaking of diagramming a sentence, diagram that atrocious "sentence" you posted above.

What is the subject of the 2nd amendment Hawk?

Hint - it isn't militia.

1965hawks believes only Democrats and criminals, many people would say are one in the same, should be allowed to have firearms!

local5th: What is the subject of the 2nd amendment Hawk? Hint - it isn't militia. [sic]


local5th,

The Second Amendment reads in its entirety as follows:

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.

If the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the militia, as Antonin Scalia would have us believe, then why does the amendment even mention it in the first place? (Hint: because the militia is the subject of the Second Amendment.)

Who is regulated?

The militia!

Who regulates the militia!

The people with their right to keep and bear arms!

It could not be more obvious, 1965hawks!

If the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the militia, as Antonin Scalia would have us believe, then why does the amendment even mention it in the first place?

The militia is the reason the people right to bear arms.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is a nominative absolute.  It has a noun, but no verb.

[/HIGHLIGHT]


How is that Local?  What has a regulated militia have to do with individuals bearing arms Local?


[/HIGHLIGHT]


Thank you for the English lesson Local.  You seem to be deriving a lot of interpretation by playing with the words and their possible usage Local.

Who is regulated?

The militia!

Who regulates the militia!

The people with their right to keep and bear arms!

It could not be more obvious, 1965hawks!
                                                                                                                                       

[/HIGHLIGHT]


That is NOT what the constitution says Local.  Nor is that the thoughts of MANY (most) of the founders Local.  Again, you liberally re-interpret the Constitution and the rule of law for over 200 years, to support your belief that terrorists, rapists, murderers, gangs, insane can have and carry guns anywhere and anytime they want and presumably their right to shoot the shit out of anyone, anywhere, anytime they want.

Benedict Diddly states that the people regulate the Militia and that this is achieved by their right to keep and bear arms.
Is there anyone here who might wish to discipline Benedict Diddly and explain to him WHO, by law and the Constitution, regulates the Militia? 
As for how he and the other Benedicts being armed are going to regulate The Militia I would love to hear how Benedict Diddly intends for that to be carried out?

Gw isn't capable of reasoned argument as he is more concerned with insulting people!

[/HIGHLIGHT]


It does not say that Local.  You are claiming that the words printed in the constitution are, "saying" the same thing your words do, even though your words are completely different.



[/HIGHLIGHT]


You do Local.


[/HIGHLIGHT]


None of the laws you support come with any responsibilities Local.  And almost none of the people who abuse those rights you claim are punished Local.  And what you claim are laws are often not laws at all.

local5th: Our forefathers did not trust standing armies but realized they were a necessity to protect the country. As a counter measure they gave we the people a protected right to bear arms.

local5th,

It's not that the people did not trust standing armies before they ratified the Constitution; they didn't trust standing armies that were not controlled by civilians. That's why the Constitution places US armed forces under the control of the President (a civilian), the Secretary of Defense, (a civilian) and Congress (civilians).

The Second Amendment gives active members of a state's official militia, the right to  bear arms (serve as soldiers), not the general population.  The general population comprises mostly civilians. Active members of the militia are not civilians. The actual wording of the Second Cond Amendment clearly states that civilians  have no rights guaranteed by that constitutional amendment. Unlike you, the Framers clearly understood that civilians do not bear arms.

"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."

Did you notice, local5th?  In the Second Amendment,  "the people" is within the context of military service, not as private citizens (civilians) and their private ownership of firearms for personal use. The Second Amendment was never intended to apply to civilians, only to the states and members of their official militias.
active
Finally, the Framers did not consider the militia a counter measure  to the national army; they understood the militia to be a reserve component of the country's standing (regular) army.

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE"

Not military.

Not the government.

'nuff said.

duke_john: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" Not military. Not the government. 'nuff said. [sic]



duke_john,

"The right of the people" is a phrase in the Second Amendment taken out of context. The Second Amendment reads in its entirety as follows:

"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."

The "right of the people" guaranteed by the Second Amendment is within the context of militia service, not the private ownership or possession of firearms for private use.


'Nuff said? Yeah you've said enough, duke_john.. Now take a seat and shut the fuck up!

In the language used in the Second Amendment
"the people" referred to the States.

The Amendment was proposed and passed to reassure some of the States
that were worried about it
that they would not have their State militias disbanded or have their weapons seized by the Feds.

NOT UNTIL HELLER was any individual right to be armed established as a Constitutional right.


Here's what SCOTUS ruled, as written by Justice Scalia:



"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
- Antonin Scalia for the SCOTUS
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/)
from
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

your rights can be denied if you don't follow the laws.

in re: reply #99

You're arguing the wrong point. At issue here is not whether the meaning of  "the people" remains the same throughout the Constitution. It's whether "the people," as used in the Second Amendment means the same as when used in other places in the Constitution. Obviously, it doesn't. Take, for example,  the original (first ten) amendments to the Constitution, a so-called bill of rights but not really a true bill of rights. Notice that the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments define broad rights guaranteed to all "the people." But notice that the Second Amendment defines a right guaranteed  to only a very small minority of "the people"--namely, active members of a state's official (government-controlled) militia. So your argument has been quickly and easily refuted. No. "The  people" does not mean the same at every place it's used in the Constitution.

Now take another look at the Second Amendment, local5th. Notice that it's the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that begins with a preamble.

preamble: a preliminary or preparatory statement; an introduction, the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose. aims, and justification.

The Second Amendment's preamble, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," informs the reader that, unlike the other amendments which define rights guaranteed to all "the people," the Second Amendment is entirely different--it applies only to "the people" as active members of a  "well regulated militia," not to the general population.


The Second Amendment was the argument the states used to justify the continuation of state-controlled militias under the newly ratifies Constitution, which had replaced the Article of Confederation. They argued that the states should be allowed o keep their militias because government-controlled militias were necessary to (not for) the security of a free state (state meaning not only the several states which comprise the nation, but also the nation itself). Therefore, the amendment argues, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall  not be infringed ("the people"  meaning the states which had the preexistent  right to keep (maintain) a militia and also "the people" who bear arms in those militias. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership of firearms.

Finally, local5th, your illogical argument assumes that the Framers would be stupid enough to include a right of rebellion in  a constitution that allows the governed the right to elect their own political superiors and to also replace them with a peaceful and orderly transfer of power when they fail to do what they were elected to do.  The Framers  apparently believed future generations of Americans would not be stupid enough to elect despots in the first place and, therefore, armed rebellions against the government would be unnecessary.

Don't like guns?  Don't buy one, which is your Constitutional right.

Now 1965hawks says the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the people!

This should tell you the true nature of his totalitarian leanings!

The Second Amendment's preamble, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," informs the reader that, unlike the other amendments which define rights guaranteed to all "the people," the Second Amendment is entirely different--it applies only to "the people" as active members of a  "well regulated militia," not to the general population.


A preamble is an introductory statement, the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law.

As such it tell you a
well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state is the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You also have to remember the the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/constitution) make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/founders/james-madison/) in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

in re: reply #107




preamble: a preliminary or preparatory statement; an introduction, the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose. aims, and justification.


The purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure the efficiency of and preservation of state-controlled militias under the newly proposed Constitution. The states' argument for the right to keep armed militias under the new Constitution as they had the right to do is expressed in the awkwardly worded, awkwardly punctuated, we know today as the second amendment to the United States of America:

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.

Simply put, what it actually says is this: a state's official militia is essential for protecting the lives and property of the inhabitants of a state, quelling domestic turmoil and unrest, enforcing state laws, and defending the state constitution and protecting the state government itself. And when called into federal service, a state's militia enforces federal laws and aids the regular armed forces in defending the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. And because of those reason, Congress shall not pass any law that would interfere with a state's power to arm it's legitimate militia if that militia is in strict compliance with federal militia laws, for such an infringement would violate the right of qualified members of the public to render military service in their state's government-endorsed militia.   

You fool!

States didn't control militias!

The formed as the need arose and disbanded as the need ceased!

Anyone could form a militia at any time for any reason!

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms was designed to prevent such militias running roughshod
over the rights of individuals as the KKK militia did in the South in the name of the Democrat party!

lookit  the bright side

toters will be shooting each other

Caserio the bright side is more criminals will be killed by law abiding gun owners reducing strain on the court system!

local5th: The fact the 2nd amendment is in the individual rights section of the constitution proves you wrong Hawk.[sic]

local5th,

Have you forgotten already! There was no "individual right" in the Second Amendment until Antonin Scalia's judicial created it and put it there. Your making that ridiculous argument proves again that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about and are just simply talking out your ass (just like you always do) when we debate the Second Amendment. Isn't that right, local5th?

Not according to our founders.


"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
     -
Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787

The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs.

d2d! : You fool! States didn't control militias!

HAHA

The [sic] formed as the need arose and disbanded as the need ceased!

HAHAHA

Anyone could form a militia at any time for any reason!

HAHAHAHA



The right of the individual to keep and bear arms was designed to prevent such militias running roughshod
over the rights of individuals as the KKK militia did in the South in the name of the Democrat party!


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA....


d2d!,

Thanks for the good belly laugh, you clueless ass clown. Now sit down and shut the fuck up...fool!

ROFLMAO

 Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly. [sic]

See Heller v DC or McDonald v Chicago which were defined by the United States Supreme Court. So whatever we say here is simply hyperbole, especially from our Democrat friends.

You have nothing Hawk. Now sit down and shut the fuck up...fool!

I have never seen someone so adamant about trying to convince others

that his whacky obvious wrong opinion is right as 69 BirddShitfoBrains here (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

1965hawks: "Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly.

omiaqt: "See Heller v DC or McDonald v Chicago which were defined by the United States Supreme Court."



No. No, omiaqt. You're confused again. I didn't ask to see the court cases in which judicial activism resulted in judges ruling from the bench and creating the Second Amendment's individual right to own firearms for private use. I asked you to point exactly in the Second Amendment where it affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms for their private use and where it defines the right of civilians to carry firearms either openly or concealed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Or in 21st-century plain English: "Because the National Guard is essential to protecting the lives and property of a state's inhabitants and protecting the state's government itself, and, when called into federal service, aiding the regular armed forces in its defense of the country and the national government, Congress is forbidden to pass any law or laws that would interfere with a state's right to arm its National Guard.

You may begin now, omiaqt.

Point out exactly where the Second Amendment affords the right of civilians to own or possess firearms, or to carry arms--concealed or openly.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is the reason the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment II, US Constitution: 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.


local5th (and the NRA) : "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed."



local5th,

When you and the NRA omit the Second Amendment's first clause, the amendment's preamble, and quote only the second clause, you quote the second clause out of context. Notice that in the Second Amendment, the peoples' right to bear arms (render military service) is within the context of serving in the Militia, not within the context of private citizens (civilians) using their privately owned firearms for their personal use.

If the Second Amendment simply read, "The right of a person to carry firearms for his or her personal use," then you could make the credible argument that Second Amendment protection extends beyond protecting the arms of a state's legitimate militia from arbitrary abuse from federal official abuse and protects an individual's right to keep a handgun in the home, or carry a handgun--openly or concealed-- while out in public. But, in actuality, the wording of the amendment itself prevents that claim from being a valid one. Doesn't it, local5th?

 
So, whenever there is a matter that endangers lives or property of a state's inhabitants, such as a derailed train, then the National Guard can be called?

1965hawks continues to claim only the law abiding should be disarmed!

Criminals and corrupt Democrat politicians should be well armed in his perverted view!

The second amendment is inarguably a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed.", means something. That something is pretty clear.

^^^ Yes ^^^   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

"Shall not be infringed.", means something. That something is pretty clear.

That right was extended to the States - representing "The People"

The reason was some states refused to agree to join the Union under the new Constitution
unless their rights to maintain their militias and armories was preserved.

Not until Heller was any personal right to possess weapons established.

And even that is not open-ended.


"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
- Antonin Scalia for the SCOTUS
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/)

from
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves
and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm
for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home.

Imagine if all those highly charged protesters in Charlottesville all had guns. It would easily turned into a bloodbath.....

Some people on this board would have rather enjoyed that scenerio........could have been far more deadly than a white guy with a car.

See local......they would have to have gone to their cars....got in their cars.....drive their cars into a crowd. And said crowd upon seeing the first car barreling towards them would get out of the way before the rest of the cars came. Ample time to avoid being killed.

However a gun within inches of your trigger finger would be far more deadly. And flying bullets are ever so much harder to avoid than a bunch of cars.

Bad analogy local.

Does anyone actually believe there were no guns at the protest? I suspect there were many.  I am glad none were used.

At the rate things are going sooner or later Democrats will start shooting people at protests more consistently!

[img width= height=]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u7GiMwWzamA/hqdefault.jpg[/img]
[img width= height=]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dbW62YkPGoM/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]
[img width= height=]http://madworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/composite_14725905634458-620x326.jpg[/img]

Does anyone honestly think people shouldn't defend themselves from animals?

Have you BEEN to D.C. lately?  Most of the place is a ghetto almost as bad as South Chicago or most of Detroit!!!!

Would anyone think that most of the Colored People (as in NAACP) have guns on them?  HELL YES!!!!!

What else would you need to know about your personal safety? ? ? ? ? ?

If you ever go to D.C., STAY in the central city and NEVER go to the neighborhoods!!!!  And, that includes the adjacent MD areas!!!!!

 

Where ever Democrats rule crime is rampant!

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.

Amendment II, US Constitution






local5th:"The first clause is just a clause."




And you, local5th, are just a loud-mouthed windbag who never knows what the fuck you're babbling about when you post your opinionated hogwash on this message board.


The first clause in the Second Amendment is not "just a clause." In actuality, it's grammatically defined as subordinate clause and in the Second Amendment it functions as that amendment's preamble.


preamble: the introductory part (as to a book, document): ITRODUCTION,PREFACE; specif.: the introductory part of a statement, ordinance, or regulation that states the reasons and intent of the law or regulation or is used for other explanatory purposes (as to recite facts knowledge of which is necessary to an understanding of the law or to define or limit the meaning of the words used  in the law).


Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Websters, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A, Copyright © 1986


Local5th:What you call the the second clause is actually a sentence.


local5th,


The Second Amendment's first clause is grammatically defined as a subordinate clause; it's second clause is grammatically defined as an independent clause or a main clause.


All clauses have a subject and a verb, but not all of them express a complete thought. Those that do express a complete thought are called independent clauses. Such clauses could be written as a separate sentences.

Clauses that do not make complete sense by themselves are called subordinate clauses.


An independent (or main) clause expresses a complete thought and can stand by itself. A subordinate (or dependent) clause does not express a complete thought and cannot stand by itself.

The Second Amendment's  first clause--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"--does not make complete sense by itself, so, therefore it is called a subordinate clause (or a dependent clause).

The clause, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms," expresses a complete thought and can stand alone. So yes; it
is a sentence. But that sentence in the Second Amendment does not define an "individual right" to own, possess, or carry firearms--openly or concealed--for sport, completion, subsistence, or even self-defense, as SCOTUS would have us believe and (of course) what you're apparently trying to argue here, local5th.


http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-freedman/dc-v-heller-scalias-decis_b_110017.html


 

The clause, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms," expresses a complete thought and can stand alone. So yes; it
is a sentence. But that sentence in the Second Amendment does not define an "individual right" to own, possess, or carry firearms--openly or concealed--for sport, completion, subsistence, or even self-defense, as SCOTUS would have us believe and (of course) what you're apparently trying to argue here, local5th.

You are getting closer. The first clause explains the REASON for the sentence.

What part of the constitution does the 2nd amendment appear? answer - Bill of Rights

Why were the bill of rights written? Answer - The main purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights is to define the civil liberties of American citizens. It refers to the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and it was introduced in 1789 to guarantee the protection of the basic rights that citizens continue to enjoy.

local5th,

There is absolutely nothing--nothing!--in the Second Amendment that either defines or guarantees an "individual right"  to own firearms, The purpose and intent of the amendment is stated in it's preamble.

[Because] a well regulated militia (a federally recognised militia) is necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall pass no law, without due cause, that interferes with the right of the people (as active members of a state's legitimate militia) to keep and bear arms (serve as soldiers) in that state's federally recognised militia).

You're interpreting the Second Amendment backwards, as did Scalia when he handed down his illogical and unprecedented opinion in the Heller v. DC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-freedman/dc-v-heller-scalias-decis_b_110017.html

The reason the states ratified the Second Amendment was because they wanted a provision in the federal constitutional that would eternally guarantee the preservation and efficiency of their militias. The states ratified the second Amendment with the understanding that it it protected the right of the people (the state) to keep  and maintained militias under  the new Constitution as they  had under the old constitution---the Articles of Confederation. Guaranteeing the right of private citizens to own, possess, and use firearms for their private use was never the issue, because, after all, simply constitutionally guaranteeing the private ownership of firearms would not prevent the central government from disarming state militias. Would it, local5th?

The main purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights is to define the civil liberties of American citizens. It refers to the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and it was introduced in 1789 to guarantee the protection of the basic rights that citizens continue to enjoy.                                                                                                                                       

local5th: The main purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights is to define the civil liberties of American citizens.


But, local5th, the issue here is whether the Second Amendment defines an "individual right" to own firearms, and there's absolutely nothing in that amendment to support that claim, Scalia's judicial activism notwithstanding.

It refers to the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and it was introduced in 1789 to guarantee the protection of the basic rights that citizens continue to enjoy.


The states ratified the Second Amendment  with the understanding that it secures the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, free from undue federal interference.  It does that by making service in a government-sanctioned  militia a "right of the people"--not the private ownership of firearms! The Second Amendment does not define a "basic right" to own a firearm. Truth is, contrary to what the NRA would have us believe, the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing--nothing!--to do with the private ownership of firearms. If so, it would simply say that Congress shall make no law that infringes upon the right of the people to carry firearms. But, of course, the Second Amendment doesn't say that. Does it, local5th?

If so, it would simply say that Congress shall make no law that infringes upon the right of the people to carry firearms. But, of course, the Second Amendment doesn't say that. Does it, local5th?

It doesn't say the right of the state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says the right of the people, and that is what the Bill of Rights is all about.

local5th,

As I've noted earlier in this thread, you really don't know what the fuck you're babbling about when you post your opinionated drivel on this message board.


1. What the states ratified in 1790, strictly speaking, was not really a bill of rights. Instead of guaranteeing the civil rights of an individual,in actuality, the original amendments emphasised popular sovereignty, defined federalism, and even protected state rights.

2. The purpose and intent of inserting the Second Amendment into Constitution was to prevent the federal government from passing laws that would disarm the Militia-- a great concern of the people and the states before ratification of the Second Amendment. Throughout Us history, maintaining (keeping) militias is and always has been a state right, not a right of citizenship. The Second Amendment is really protects a state right, not a "right of the people" (a civil right), as you're trying to argue here.

3. As used in the Second Amendment, the people has a dual meaning--the people drawn from the general population to render military service (bear arms) in the Militia and the people--a political term--meaning the state itself.



A government-controlled militia is necessary to the security of a free state; therefore, the right of the people (the state) to keep (maintain an armed a militia militia) and of the people (as active members of a state's legitimate militia) to  bear arms (render service in an armed, government-controlled militia) shall not be violated by the federal government without due cause.

That's what the Second Amendment really sats, local5th.

 

It says what it says Hawk.

And we finally got it right.

Local, don't you agree that hawkie is just a bit touched?

 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

The Second Amendment is just what it says. The amendment isn't that long. If the FF meant for it to be something other than what it says I'm sure they had enough ink in the well, and probably didn't get writers cramp from such a short paragraph.

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/hattip.gif)

^^^^ Yes ^^^^

To: sine-qua-non

in re: reply #62

A photo purportedly displaying a gun warning below a “Welcome to Idaho” sign has been circulating on the Internet on blogs, message boards, and via email since at least 2013. While the “Welcome to Idaho” sign is real, the gun warning included with it is not.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/welcometoidaho.asp[/COLOR]]http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/welcometoidaho.asp (http://[COLOR=#000000)

https://www.truthorfiction.com/idaho-sign-warns-crooks-gun-owners/[/COLOR]]https://www.truthorfiction.com/idaho-sign-warns-crooks-gun-owners/ (http://[COLOR=#000000)

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/08/14/idahoroadsign/[/COLOR]]https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/08/14/idahoroadsign/ (http://[COLOR=#000000)

http://wafflesatnoon.com/welcome-idaho-gun-warning-sign/[/COLOR]]http://wafflesatnoon.com/welcome-idaho-gun-warning-sign/ (http://[COLOR=#000000)




You mean This photo?

The one my wife took with My Camera in Idaho ???

Bwahahahahaha!! 
Notice the photo caption is photo #0009 on my camera !!!

You are such a tool of the morons I hate to expose your lunacy here but it's just toooo funny self confessed babykiller booboo !!! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

sine-qua-non: You mean This photo?

Yep. The one that's one, sine-qua-non.! The one that was altered. You know--altered.

The one my wife took with my Camera in Idaho?

No, sine-qua-non. The photo-shopped one you posted because you were fooled by another lying gun nut, you lying asshole.

Bwahahahahaha!  Notice the photo caption is photo #0009 on my camera.

No. I didn't notice that, you lying piece o' shit.

You are such a tool of the blah blah blah blah blah....

Shut the fuck up and stick your head back up your ass where you usually keep it, sine-qua-non. Nobody's really interested in the lies you're telling here.

What does a caption have to do with anything?

Where's the caption?

I was merely following Sine's lead. He mistakenly believes a file name to be a caption.

So you didn't see it either. Huh, wmdn_bs? That proves again that sin-qua-non is one of our forum's right-wingnut, bald-faced, liars.

Stop accusing Conservatives for acting like liberals, hawkiepoo.

What the fuck are you babbling about now, duke_john?

Why do socialists like 1965hawks hate the Second Amendment so very much?

Because as Venezuela proves you cannot have a socialist dictatorship if the people have a right to keep and bear arms!

d2d!,

Tell me exactly which post of mine in this thread you're babbling about now.

Don't you know?

All your posts are nothing but hate filled screeds against individual rights especially Second Amendment rights!

Read this, d2d!

http://alternet.org/right-wing/6-gun-groups-arent-white-right-wingers (http://alternet.org/right-wing/6-gun-groups-arent-white-right-wingers)

What does the United States Supreme Court say in Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, ms/mr hawk1965?

It says that the "second Amendment right is not unlimited"

Scalia from the Heller decision

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/)

It is mostly left up to the States, and should at minimum be left so.

That's one of the reasons why there are so many armed nitwits on the streets.

the reason the gun crime rate in Chicago is so high:

you can take the subway to the suburbs in the next state over and buy whatever gun you can afford with ease.

We need universal gun laws.

Do a little test for me, drive to an adjacent State with your State ID and try purchasing a handgun from a FFL Dealer?

(http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Open-Carry-Starbucks-courtesy-csmonitor.com_.jpg)

(https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/courtesy-my.opencarry.org_.png)

Amazes me how easy it is to learn the gun laws of our Nation, but how truly ignorant many like Captain_kook and other like her/him are of these gun laws.

kook parrots what he is paid to say.

My fear is, America will one day put the alt-leftis back in power and they'll go full throttle getting our guns.

"What does the United States Supreme Court say in Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, ms/mr hawk1965?"--omiaqt

Omiaqt,

The real question is this: Why did Scalia and Alito rewrite the Second Amendment in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago?

Scalia and Alito didn't rewrite the Second Amendment!

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.

Amendment II, US Constitution



d2d!,

Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it where it guarantees the right of homeowners to keep a handgun in their residences for their self-defense (District of Columbia v. Heller). Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it guarantees the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" (McDonald v. Chicago)

Scalia and Alito rewrote the Second Amendment.

Good grief, hawkie has gone off the deep end!

Yes, handguns are arms, 1965hawks!

The people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms!

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.

Amendment II, US Constitution



d2d!,

Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it where it guarantees the right of homeowners to keep a handgun in their residences for their self-defense...SEE BELOW..But sadly you lack the patriotism, the intelligence and the courage to fully understand that when the 2nd amendment was written "We the People" were the "well regulated militia" We did not need to be asked by our Gov to defend OUR country against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, Hawkie being the domestic kind, Our heritage and history shows that the Gov at will can and do turn against the people so our forefathers made it possible that "We the People" will not be silenced by the Gov, we will fight and die for our freedoms.
The Constitution provides me the right to own a firearm, the Castle Doctrine which came to this country around the 18th century gives me the right to defend myself.
 
So Hawkie understand, when you put on your ISIS uniform to wreak havoc and cause destruction and attack 80 yr old women carrying an American flag, make no mistake, no ambiguity, that AMERICANS like me will exercise our RIGHTS regardless of your total ignorance.
 
And before you cry to Jim, It's not a threat it is in fact a PROMISE.

"Good grief, hawkie has gone off the deep end!" [sic]--duke_john, reply #175

duke_john,

Your logical fallacy: ad hominem--you attacked me personally rather than attacking my argument and pointing out where it lacks credibility. Your insulting me does not refute my argument.


d2d!: Yes, handguns are arms, 1965hawks! The people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms!

d2d!,

Strictly speaking, the term arms refers to military hardware, as in arms treaty. The purpose and intent of the Second Amendment is to constitutionally prohibit the federal government from interfering with the right of a state to arm its official militia without due cause. The states ratified that amendment with that understanding. Constitutionally guaranteeing the right of individuals to own firearms for self-defense was never the issue, Scalia's unprecedented ruling in Heller notwithstanding.

And, furthermore, the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But that right is linked to their rendering military service (bearing arms) in a state's federally recognised militia--a militia in strict compliance with federal and state militia laws (regulations), a "well-regulated militia." A homeowner keeping a handgun in his or her home is not "bearing arms." Where did Scalia get the absurd notion that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense? That "right" is certainly not in the wording of the Second Amendment!

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.
___Amendment II, US Constitution

Nope. There's nothing at all about keeping handguns in the home for self-defense in that sentence. Is there, d2d?

baretta19: [Y]ou lack the patriotism, the intelligence and the courage to fully understand that when the 2nd [A]mendment was written "We the People" were the "well regulated militia[.]"


baretta19,


I asked your pal d2d! to point out exactly where in the Second Amendment does it guarantee the right of homeowners to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. But you decided to answer for her. Right off the bat your response is fallacious; you began with an ad hominem attack against me--a  fallacy of argument and logical fallacy. then you follow that fallacy with two more--avoiding the issue and arguing your opinion as fact. Your arguing that I lack patriotism and intelligence insults me but does not refute my argument. And your implying that when the states ratified the Second Amendment the general population was construed to be the militia of the several states is based on your misunderstanding of the Militia in US history.


Our heritage and history shows that the [government]...can and [does] turn against the people[,] so our forefathers made it possible that "We the People" will not be silenced by the [government], we will fight and die for our freedoms.


Sorry, baretta19. but I can't agree with the opinionated malarkey you posted above. It is based on the absurd notion that the Framers wrote a constitution that guaranteed the right of the governed to wage armed insurrections against governmental authority. No government--whether the most free or most despotic--guarantees the governed the right of rebellion. And, by the way, baretta19, from 1861 through 1865 some of the people  turned against their own government and fought a bloody civil war against the Constitution their forefathers had ratified. When has this country's central government "turned against" the American people?



The Constitution provides me the right to own a firearm,...


But neither you nor d2d! have yet to point out exactly where in the Second Amendment that right is found. Isn't that right, baretta19?


...the Castle Doctrine which came to this country around the 18th century gives me the right to defend myself.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither you nor d2d! have yet to But neither you nor d2d! have yet to point out exactly where in the Second Amendment the right of self-defense is found. Remember?

So Hawkie understand, when you put on your ISIS uniform to wreak havoc blah blah blah blah....


Yeah...Right, baretta19. LOL

And before you cry to Jim, blah blah blah blah....


You're apparently confusing me with my crybaby opponents in this forum. I'm not a snowflake like they are. Truth is, I'm more than capable of defending my arguments and have no need whatsoever to run crying to jim for any reason at all--not a damn thing!

Your boolshit has been debunked many times  over, hawkiepoo.

1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to the rights of the individual therefore has no purpose what so ever!

Guess the founders were drunk that day!  (sarcasm)

NOT UNTIL HELLER was any individual right to be armed established as a Constitutional right.

That's what you get when your master's anti-gun agenda crossed the line, leaving people defenseless in their own homes, resulting in the court looking into the meaning of the 2nd in depth for the very first time.  Until then, and up until now, the individual right to keep and bear arms was self-evident to Americans.  For me, it matters not where or how the court found that right, but that it asserted its self-evident existence when the body politic didn't give one chit about the unconscionable position it put Mr. Heller in.  Not one chit.  That was a totally unreasonable position under any sane person’s characterization.  If not in the 2nd, then where else?  It's in there with the right to live.  Wherever that is, I don't give a chit.  There was no other remedy possible but the remedy provided.  Only hysterical maniacs can push the limits of reason to the point where the need to consider a remedy was unequivocally necessary, but it was necessary -- absolutely necessary.

"1965hawks says the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to the rights of the individual therefore has no purpose what so ever!" [sic]--d2d!

d2d!,

This is the Second Amendment in its entirety:

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.

You have yet to point out exactly where the Second Amendment makes owning a firearm an "individual right." More to the point at issue, you have yet to point out exactly where the Second Amendment protects the "right" of a homeowner to keep a handgun in his or her home for self-defense. That was Scalia's harebrained opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Remember? In McDonald v. City of Chicago, Alito went even further, ruling that Scalia's newly created Second Amendment "right" extended beyond a person's home.

So, for all intents and purposes, Scalia and Alito rewrote the Second Amendment. The states ratified that amendment with the understanding that it protected the arms of their official militias (arms to be used for the common defense) against arbitrary abuse by federal officials. Now the wording of the Second Amendment is meaningless; according to Scalia and Alito, the Second Amendment protects the "right"  to carry firearms for self-defense. That was never the intent of the amendment's framers and the states that ratified it; self-defense was never the issue.

To: local5th

Here it is again for your perusal:

"nless you believe that the Founders’ knowledge of grammar and sentence structure was suspect (and what right-thinking person would think that?), the Second amendment, though it does employ a peculiar and sometimes awkward construction called an “absolute,” is actually a very straightforward call for the establishment of an armed militia when necessary. It has nothing to do with individual gun “rights” except in that context."

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/ (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/)

Here it is again for your perusal hawk:


The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.

Militias are covered elsewhere in our constitution.


Congress shall have the power ... to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
— US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
— US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1

To argue with 69BirdShitfoBrains on this is almost as insane as he is on this subject!

I like Penn & Tellers explanation of the 2nd on YouTube one of the best by two of the best! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

local5th,

For you information:

The Constitution's Framers did not believe that document, as written and construed, needed a bill of rights. In fact, by a vote of 10-0, the delegates to the convention voted down a suggestion to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. The primary concern of the Framers was to create a more powerful central government and "more perfect Union." Madison promised to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution only after the anti-Federalist opposition to ratification--based inter alia on the Constitution's lack of Constitution--threatened ratification of the proposed constitution.

So Madison promised the people that he would add a bill of rights to the Constitution if the states ratified it. And Madison kept his promise; however, strictly speaking, Madison's original (first ten) amendments to the Constitution aren't really a bill of rights. Instead of guaranteeing rights of "individuals," Madison's so-called bill of rights emphasized popular sovereignty (the people) and state rights, not individual rights. It was not until ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that the US Constitution actually guaranteed the rights of an individual.

careful some tough guy doan take yer gun away and clobber you with it

sine-qua-non: To argue with 69BirdShitfoBrains on this is almost as insane as he is on this subject!

You aren't arguing, sin-qua-non. All you've done here is post an ad hominem--a fallacy of argument. What you've done here is simply attack me instead of attacking my argument. Needless to say, that's what you always do when you respond to my posts on this message board. Isn't that right, sine-qua-non?

I'm neither intimidated nor impressed with your puerile name-calling--only amused. I'm interested in fact-based discourse when I'm a discussant in this forum, not the mindless drivel of those who base their fallacious arguments on fallacies of argument and logical fallacies.

Don't used biased blogs as your defense, hawk.  You don't accept them when posted against your tripe.

Yep, that's what he's saying.

..

The military is about the only place you can access a real assault rifle without a special permit.

That's closer to the way it should be.

That's the way it is.

Everyone would know that is the way it is if liberals and the media hyenas didn't lie about guns

Again Kook says big government and little people!

America is supposed to be little government and big people!

local5th: So now you're saying freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, privacy and due process are not individual rights?



local5th,

Your logical fallacy: Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

You're altering the facts to suit your bogus argument, propping up a straw man to attack and "refute." In actuality, what you're doing here is attacking an argument I never made. Did I say the freedoms guaranteed in Amendments I through X were not individual rights or did I say those rights, as construed by the ratifiers, were collective rights of the people, as a whole, rather than rights of an individual?

bill of rights  (usu. cap.)  A section or addendum, usu. in  a constitution, defining the situations in which a politically organized society will permit free, spontaneous, and individual activity, and guarantee that government powers will not be used in certain ways.
___Black' Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (2004)


Although they guarantee that the central government's powers will not be used in certain ways, Amendments I through X to the US Constitution, are not a real bill of rights. They emphasise popular sovereignty rather than individuality; and in addition to that, the original (first ten) amendments to the US Constitution--the so-called Bill of Rights ratified by the states in 1791--also defined federalism, and guaranteed state rights.

So Madison's "bill of rights" wasn't really a bill of rights. Was it, local5th? No. The so-called bill of rights did not really become a Bill of Rights until the US Supreme Court began incorporating it into Amendment XIV. You can bullshit duke_john, but you can't bullshit me, local5th.
 

"Again Kook says big government and little people! America is supposed to be little government and big people!" [sic]--d2d!

d2d!,

You're arguing your opinion as fact again. Point out exactly where the US Constitution says "America is supposed to be little government and big people."

hawkiepoo is bullshit, period.

So Madison's "bill of rights" wasn't really a bill of rights.

It was.

Google bill of rights and see what you get.


The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.

hawkiepoo hates America, so it's a useless endeavor to talk sense into him.

 The constitution's very existence says government should be limited as it limits governmental authority!

There is no individual right to privacy in the Constitution, for that matter, but justices managed to pull that out of the Constitution and the exact same reasoning can be applied to assert the individual right to keep and bear arms.  They further found that privacy extends to abortion.  Now if you want to talk about justices stretching words, there's a real doozy for you.  So, the precedent for less than strict interpretation existed long before Heller.  That's the reality of today.  Reap what you sow.  The rule of law went out the window when it was decided that contemporary whim replaced black letter law.  There is point in bitching about how justices pull stuff out of their arses, now.  The precedent is set.

I don't understand how taking another person's life is a private matter!

To: local5th

in re: reply #204

As written, and as they were construed and ratified, the first-ten amendments --although called the US Bill of Rights--was not really a bill of rights.

bill of rights  (usu. cap.)  A section or addendum, usu. in  a constitution, defining the situations in which a politically organized society will permit free, spontaneous, and individual activity, and guarantee that government powers will not be used in certain ways.
___Black' Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (2004)


A constitution's bill of rights defines situations in which a politically organized society "will permit free, spontaneous, and individual activity." (My emphasis)

 Haven't you noticed, local5th? Amendments I through X guarantee rights to the people instead of to an individual.
 
The Second Amendment guarantees the collective right of the people to serve in a state's official militia. Contrary to Scalia's illogical opinion in Heller, it neither defines nor guarantees the right of an individual to own, possess, or use firearms for his or her personal use--not even for self-defense.

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."

     -
Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787

I don't think I'm wrong, but maybe you can correct me. I believe "the people" is made up of individuals.

So are corporations but Democrats continue to insist corporations are not people!

Corporations are not people any more than the rocks in my yard. They are a piece of paper.

So do corporations spontaneously come into being?

Do mom and pop owners of a grocery store suddenly lose all rights to petition the government for redress of grievances simply by forming a corporation?

Why does forming a corporation make a person evil and cause him to lose all rights?

People build a house to, but the house is not people.

Government taxes the house that people built!

Why do you oppose people protesting high property taxes?

I don't think my property taxes are out of line considering the benefits from those taxes. I appreciate the fire protection, the road work, the public school funding, the snow removal, etc...

Do you believe those should be free, or do you think each individual home should pay only if they choose to?

Servile as ever, I see!

So you can't answer? I'm not surprised. Childish as ever, I see.

Again, you attempt to change the subject!

Let's try, again!

Government taxes the house that people built!

Why do you oppose people protesting high property taxes?

Do you believe people have no right to protest high taxes?

People do have the right to protest high property taxes. Arbitration is provided for anyone that chooses to protest if they believe they are being taxed unjustly. You should know that. Now are you willing to answer the question I posted?

Arbitration conducted by the government meaning bias is inherent in the process!

If u were an imbecilic conspiracy theorist,  I suppose I might agree with you.

So having a person who has a financial interest in increased governmental income arbitrating tax challenges is not inherent bias?

wmd_bs: I don't think I'm wrong, but maybe you can correct me. I believe "the people" is made up of individuals.



wmd_bs,

Allow me to correct you: individual refers to one person; people refers to human beings (persons/individuals) in general or considered collectively. Yes a group, class, or society comprises individuals, but as members of those groups they are considered collectively, not as individuals.  For example: "The American people" is understood to mean the US population as a whole, not as individuals.

But notice, wmd_bs, neither individual, person, nor people is used in the first-ten amendments to the Constitution. The term used is the people--a political term meaning the body politic--the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a politically organised group of citizens.

The terms people and the people are disparate.

local5th: I agree[,] [wmdn_bs]. [T]he people is [sic] a collection of individuals.

local5th,

See reply #228.

 the people--a political term meaning the body politic--the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a politically organised group of citizens.

Yup. Without the individual there would be no people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a politically organized group of citizens.

local5th: It was.


No it wasn't, local5th! As originally construed and ratified, the first-ten amendments to the US Constitution do not fit the definition of a bill of rights.


Google bill of rights and see what you get. The [first-ten] amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.


There you go again, local5th, propping up a straw man argument to attack instead of attacking the argument I made. Did I say the original (first-ten) amendments to the US Constitution are not the US Bill of Rights, or did I say Amendments I through X to the US Constitution, as originally construed and ratified, wasn't really a bill of rights?

doan jim move these crappy posts ?

The Constitution isn't crappy.

local5th: Without the individual there would be no people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a politically organized group of citizens.

LOL

local5th,

You've presented another straw man argument! I've never made the illogical clam that a group does not comprise individuals, as you're implying here. Have I? No! Of course I haven't. That's your laughable attempt to alter the facts to suit your bogus argument.

Your fallacious argument, based on your shallow reasoning, conveniently ignores the fact that Amendments I though X do  not refer to the body politic as individuals, but collectively as the people.

The Second Amendment guarantees the people the collective right to render military service (bear arms) in lawful militia--a militia well-regulated by federal and state militia laws. And at the same time, the Second Amendment reaffirms the right of a state (the people) to keep (maintain) an armed militia, because, as that constitutional amendment correctly states, a state's official militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Nope. Contrary to what you and others continually argue in this forum, the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee an individual's right to own a firearm, and the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional barrier against governmental regulation of the ownership, possession, and use of firearms is an absurd and ludicrous notion, to say the least.

local5th: As originally construed and ratified, the first-ten amendments to the US Constitution were written to ensure government did not limit natural rights guaranteed to all fee men.



bill of rights - Legal Definition. n. A section or addendum, usually in a constitution of a country, state, or other similar political entity, specifying the civil and political rights of the entity's citizens or residents and the limits on the entity's government to infringe on or interfere with those rights.


local5th,

Your logical fallacy: avoiding the issue (also known as: missing the point, straying off the subject)

You continue to respond by not addressing the point of my argument. Have I ever made the claim that Amendments I through X, as originally construed and ratified by the states, do not preclude the federal government from trenching the rights it guarantees to the people?

 No. What I've argued throughout this debate with you is the fact that what the states ratified in 1791 was not really a bill of rights. A bill of rights defines and guarantees the rights of an individual (a person). Do Amendments I and X do that, local5th?

 No. Amendments I through ten are a list of things the central (federal/national) government is forbidden to do and guarantees the national government (but not state governments) will not violate those rights guaranteed in those constitutional amendments. And notice, local5th. Those rights are afforded only to "the people" ( free, white, male property owners)

It was not until ratification of Amendment XIV that the US Constitution actually defined US citizenship and defined the rights of a person (individual). But just as Amendments I through X applied only to the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state governments. It was not until the 1920s, when the US Supreme Court began incorporating the original "bill of rights" into Amendment XIV did the Madison's amendments become a real Bill of Rights.

But what about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment actually protects a state's right to maintain an armed militia, not an individual right of firearm ownership. To ensure that the federal government can never interfere with a state's ability to arm it's lawful militia without due cause. The Framers' clever wording of the Second Amendment makes militia service (bearing arms) a "right of the people" and forbids Congress to pass any law that would infringe upon the peoples' right to fulfill their patriotic duty. Truth is, local5th, the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment was not construed to be an "individual" until just recently--the result of judicial activism by Supreme Court Justices in two landmark cases:

 United States v. Heller (Scalia) and

McDonald V. City of Chicago (Alito)

"hawkiepoo [sic] hates America, so it's blah blah blah...."
____duke_john, reply #205


duke_john,

Your logical fallacy: ad hominem--attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Apparently, that's the only reason you're here.

See replies #203, 194, 180, 175, 156, 146, 60, and 35.

hawkie, you have some wild fantasies.

ad hominem: a fallacious argument marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than on an opponent's argument.


duke_john,

Now we can add reply #238 to the aforementioned list.

LOL

It was an observation, not an attack, snowflake.

1965hawks engages in at hominem attacks with virtually every post he makes!

His hypocrisy is legendary!