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

[Local5th]

See local......they would have to have gone to their cars....got in their cars.....drive their cars into a crowd.

You think guns would have walked to the protest?

[wmdn_bs]

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

[D2D]

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

[wxzyw]

[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?

[WWV10MHZ]

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!!!!!

 

[D2D]

Where ever Democrats rule crime is rampant!

[1965hawks]

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


 

[Local5th]

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.

[1965hawks]

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?

[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.                                                                                                                                       

[1965hawks]

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?

[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.