DC Federal Court Ruled Carrying Guns In Public A 2nd amendment Right

[1965hawks]

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.   

[D2D]

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!

[Local5th]

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.   

The fact the 2nd amendment is in the individual rights section of the constitution proves you wrong Hawk.

[caserio1]

lookit  the bright side

toters will be shooting each other

[D2D]

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

[1965hawks]

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?

[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.

[1965hawks]

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

[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. [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.

[Local5th]

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

[sine-qua-non]

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

that his whacky obvious wrong opinion is right as 69 BirddShitfoBrains here

[1965hawks]

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.