User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:49:11 PM EDT
[#1]
The Heller ruling clearly states that the right of the people and the militia clause are two entirely different things, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. The security of the free state requires a militia.
Now, to really explain things, you need to look up a lot of other papers that were wrote. The Militia act is still in force and states all able body men shall maintain a weapon and a certain amount of provisions to be able to defend the state. In subsequent rulings they have now stated that women are included. This had been discussed to death, and people seem to really be lacking in their understanding of the Constitution. I guess that is what getting rid of civics classes do for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:52:16 PM EDT
[#2]
If only they had worded it as clearly as they did with the right to an abortion............................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:55:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only they had worded it as clearly as they did with the right to an abortion............................ Entirely different topic, don't even attempt to mix abortion and gun rights. Gun rights have been with us since day one, the ability to get an abortion in the whole scope of things in a newer subject that evolved from the unrest of the 60's |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:04:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. One purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the power of enforcing their consent in the hands of the American people, it is a basic check and balance in our system of government. The organized militias were also supposed to be state controlled they are now called the NATIONAL guard for a reason. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. The 2nd amendment is not a statute that can be ruled null and void. It is an integral part of our constitiution and would require the express consent of the people through the amendment process to change it. The first 10 amendments were also called inalienable rights which no government could legitimately take away, but since Hillary has expressed the desire to nullify this one, as well as 1st amendment free speech (Citizen's United ruling that the gov could not restrict political speech), and 5th amendment due process (no fly list firearms prohibition), it is pretty clear that she has no respect for constitutional restraint. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. One purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the power of enforcing their consent in the hands of the American people, it is a basic check and balance in our system of government. The organized militias were also supposed to be state controlled they are now called the NATIONAL guard for a reason. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. The 2nd amendment is not a statute that can be ruled null and void. It is an integral part of our constitiution and would require the express consent of the people through the amendment process to change it. The first 10 amendments were also called inalienable rights which no government could legitimately take away, but since Hillary has expressed the desire to nullify this one, as well as 1st amendment free speech (Citizen's United ruling that the gov could not restrict political speech), and 5th amendment due process (no fly list firearms prohibition), it is pretty clear that she has no respect for constitutional restraint. My comments in blue above. Also: Our founders were afraid of the power of the Federal government having a standing army, that is why they set up this system,so the states would be able to reign in the feds if necessary. The Feds have been systematically reducing the power of the states for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:23:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
doesn't say the security of the state... "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." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? doesn't say the security of the state... "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 Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:30:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stanc, seriously go read the Heller opinion linked above if you haven't done so. It lays out, in the majority opinion, with much historical background on why the 2nd was written the way it was. You keep asking why it was written the way it was, the Heller opinion attempts to answer those and other questions. They even broke it down to explain what each element or word means. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are entitled to your opinion. As to the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment, I can only point out (again) that it was they who linked the "right to keep and bear" with the need for state militias. Stanc, seriously go read the Heller opinion linked above if you haven't done so. It lays out, in the majority opinion, with much historical background on why the 2nd was written the way it was. You keep asking why it was written the way it was, the Heller opinion attempts to answer those and other questions. They even broke it down to explain what each element or word means. Started to read it, then noticed it's 157 pages in length, so I doubt that I'll read anywhere near the whole thing. Intended to go back and respond to your earlier post after lunch, but got sidetracked and haven't got to it, yet. One thing I can comment on is that the Heller majority opinion is just that: Opinion, not indisputable fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:33:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? doesn't say the security of the state... "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 Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. Just because the people have allowed them to get away with it, does not mean they are wrong. When it comes down to it, the majority of the country does not pay attention to what is going on unless it directly affects them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:36:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess a state of being is a hard concept for a statist to grasp....
Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? doesn't say the security of the state... "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." I guess a state of being is a hard concept for a statist to grasp....
The Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. So to you, the government is infallible. Now I understand who and what you are. I'm done arguing with a Liberal Statist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:44:12 PM EDT
[#9]
I can't believe THIS conversation is going on, on such a pro gun website, it almost seems as if we have a plant!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:57:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's been done before... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not when just about every gun owner in America has an AR or a derivative. If they do anything it will be magazine limit and the old ones will be grandfathered like before. Even your magpul mags have a date stamped on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:57:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Heller ruling clearly states that the right of the people and the militia clause are two entirely different things, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. The security of the free state requires a militia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Heller ruling clearly states that the right of the people and the militia clause are two entirely different things, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. The security of the free state requires a militia. Since the state militias disbanded about a century ago, apparently a militia is not required for that purpose. Now, to really explain things, you need to look up a lot of other papers that were wrote. The Militia act is still in force and states all able body men shall maintain a weapon and a certain amount of provisions to be able to defend the state. You mean the one requiring a militia member to "...provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."? You're kidding, right? Or don't you know that Act was repealed when state militias were superseded by the National Guard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:03:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the state militias disbanded about a century ago, apparently a militia is not required for that purpose. You mean the one requiring a militia member to "...provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."? You're kidding, right? Or don't you know that Act was repealed when state militias were superseded by the National Guard? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Heller ruling clearly states that the right of the people and the militia clause are two entirely different things, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. The security of the free state requires a militia. Since the state militias disbanded about a century ago, apparently a militia is not required for that purpose. Now, to really explain things, you need to look up a lot of other papers that were wrote. The Militia act is still in force and states all able body men shall maintain a weapon and a certain amount of provisions to be able to defend the state. You mean the one requiring a militia member to "...provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball..."? You're kidding, right? Or don't you know that Act was repealed when state militias were superseded by the National Guard? No, it was not, we discussed this many times in military strategy as well as civics when I was attending West Point Military Academy, State militias can still to this day be called up at any given time by the governor of a state or a majority of the legislature in that state. There is so much that is misunderstood on how we got to this point, people pick and choose what they want to read, but seem to have a completely different understanding than the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We have a real state Militia here in the state of Montana, The type of weapon does not matter, the intent of the act is followed. After this comment I am sure you are anti gun plant! Just waiting for your chance to pounce. You are lock step with the legislature in CA I see! Now we can still keep pissing, moaning and arguing, but it will not accomplish anything other that getting the thread locked and perhaps a couple of hand slapping situations. Just leave it at what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:25:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't believe THIS conversation is going on, on such a pro gun website, it almost seems as if we have a plant! ALMOST....? patently obvious and vocal plant . there are several here , stanc is just one of the better examples . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:27:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Might as well cross post this....
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1883085_VIDEO__Well_Regulated_Militia_Only___Myth_Debunked__2nd_Amendment_Truth.html 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:35:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Jews would argue with the nazis while being loaded on trains and tell them that what they are doing is illegal. "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper." If you put your faith in it, and pin your hopes to it, if you believe that is why you have rights, you will be disappointed enslaved. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? Please help put my mind at ease. Thanks. __________________________________ Libertas illis volentibus ad pugnam. The Jews would argue with the nazis while being loaded on trains and tell them that what they are doing is illegal. "The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper." If you put your faith in it, and pin your hopes to it, if you believe that is why you have rights, you will be disappointed enslaved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:36:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. Whatever put you here equipped you with the ability to make decisions and act on them. This means that you're supposed to be in control of/own yourself. Not me, and not "society." That's the "moral and rational" basis of rights. You really only have one true right, which is to your own (as in "not mine") life. All other "rights" are its derivatives. Of course, one has to assert and/or obtain legal protection for their rights or they effectively don't exist (can't be freely practiced). My purpose in this post was to make the case for why an individual has rights. I apologize for not employing a higher level of abstraction in my question. Avoid making unsubstantiated assertions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:38:04 PM EDT
[#17]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:40:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Started to read it, then noticed it's 157 pages in length, so I doubt that I'll read anywhere near the whole thing. Intended to go back and respond to your earlier post after lunch, but got sidetracked and haven't got to it, yet. One thing I can comment on is that the Heller majority opinion is just that: Opinion, not indisputable fact. Of course its just an opinion. One that happens to be far, far, far, far better researched, documented, and supported than your opinions in this thread. Anyone who's honest in this discussion and who has read even a few of the Federalist papers and other writing from that time period by those who were involved with the Constitution/Bill of Rights knows that the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right and that the militia/free state portion of the prefatory clause was just laying out one of the reasons as to why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" by the government. But of course there will always be people, as you appear to be, who will disagree with the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to the Militia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:44:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might as well cross post this....
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1883085_VIDEO__Well_Regulated_Militia_Only___Myth_Debunked__2nd_Amendment_Truth.html  https://youtu.be/MW_noXjj6w8Nice! Thanks for posting that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:46:18 PM EDT
[#20]
I put my mind at ease by choosing to ignore whoever is elected and the bastardized government they represent. I suggest the OP do likewise. It's in God's hands now, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:51:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife and enact a new AWB that bans all semiautomatics, of something less draconian or something more draconian IF she get congress to pass legislation to that . She could repeal the Second Amendment if she could get a Constitutional amendment through (takes 75% "yeas" to a pass, and get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Do this unilaterally without Congress? As much as she might want to, she is restricted in may ways. She will definitely stack the federal courts with anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-gun, anti-male, and anti-Caucasian justices including at SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:54:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? doesn't say the security of the state... "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 Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. No. You replaced free state with State. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd A as a free state is no in any way synonymous with "State". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:56:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? ( A right being, the freedom to do as one wishes as long as it harms no one physically. ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:59:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. <sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:02:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds difficult but not if you remember they passed the Huges amendment without the right amount of votes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mrs. Bill Clinton's wife and enact a new AWB that bans all semiautomatics, of something less draconian or something more draconian IF she get congress to pass legislation to that . She could repeal the Second Amendment if she could get a Constitutional amendment through (takes 75% "yeas" to a pass, and get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Do this unilaterally without Congress? As much as she might want to, she is restricted in may ways. She will definitely stack the federal courts with anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-gun, anti-male, and anti-Caucasian justices including at SCOTUS. The Hughes amendment was not an amendment to the Constitution, just a poison pill attached to FOPA. All that required was a majority of congresscum, and it was a voice vote not a roll call vote, with the actual results a point of contention. Charlie Rangel declared it passed. It did not require ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures, and Reagan could have (in hindsight, should have) vetoed FOPA over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:04:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? Of course she will be able. She WILL get SOMETHING, even if she doesn't get a full AWB. And what will that mean for us? We have lost more gun rights and we have lost them forever. There will be no sunset and Republicans will never force a repeal. Do we get to keep what we have? Only if we're lucky. Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Maybe. But maybe it will be illegal to repair or modify an "assault weapon". Do you think I'm fucking psychic or I can see the future? Can you still buy uppers? Maybe, if we're lucky. What things might they sneak in there? Mandatory daily enemas and deep hard anal fisting for all gun owners. They're commies, they'll put whatever the fuck they want in it. If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? She will walk all over the senate and the house and bypass them with executive orders whenever she wants, and they won't stop her. She will find the most left wing wise latina liberal activist judge she can find to corrupt the court and they will never take out side again in our lifetime. Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? Gun control has nothing to do with terrorism. Weak borders and inviting terrorists in, however, does. No it doesn't mean she can legally do it but she might just do it anyway. They will say and do whatever they want to get their way. How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? It doesn't. They don't believe in our constitutional right. They only believe in what they want to believe in. Please help put my mind at ease. Thanks. Vote trump, pray to god he wins, and only after Republicans control the white house and at least one of the two bodies of congress can you put your mind at ease. DON'T BE DELUDED. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO REST AND IF YOUR MIND IS AT EASE YOU ARE A FOOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:08:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. <sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. BS. In nature everything has a right to self defense to it's best ability. While the gazelle might not have a good method of defense no high authority is restricting the gazelle from doing it's best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:08:30 PM EDT
[#28]
What will be interesting is if another ban of some sort happens and we see "responsible gun owners" come out in support of it.
I mean, we have folks like TCC556Guy (IIRC) who openly stand against CCW for vets on collage campus, supressors being removed from NFA protections and constitutional carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:11:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course its just an opinion. One that happens to be far, far, far, far better researched, documented, and supported than your opinions in this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Started to read it, then noticed it's 157 pages in length, so I doubt that I'll read anywhere near the whole thing. Intended to go back and respond to your earlier post after lunch, but got sidetracked and haven't got to it, yet. One thing I can comment on is that the Heller majority opinion is just that: Opinion, not indisputable fact. Of course its just an opinion. One that happens to be far, far, far, far better researched, documented, and supported than your opinions in this thread. What did the minority opinion say? Did it agree with the majority opinion? Anyone who's honest in this discussion and who has read even a few of the Federalist papers and other writing from that time period by those who were involved with the Constitution/Bill of Rights knows that the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right and that the militia/free state portion of the prefatory clause was just laying out one of the reasons as to why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" by the government. But of course there will always be people, as you appear to be, who will disagree with the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to the Militia. If the right to keep and bear arms was viewed by the framers as an individual right unconnected to the militia, why did the framers explicitly connect it to the militia? If the prefatory clause is so inconsequential, why include it at all? Why not just simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:15:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. You replaced free state with State. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd A as a free state is no in any way synonymous with "State". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? doesn't say the security of the state... "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 Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. No. You replaced free state with State. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd A as a free state is no in any way synonymous with "State". Explain, please: How is a free state not a state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:15:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did the minority opinion say? Did it agree with the majority opinion? If the right to keep and bear arms was viewed by the framers as an individual right unconnected to the militia, why did the framers explicitly connect it to the militia? If the prefatory clause is so inconsequential, why include it at all? Why not just simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Started to read it, then noticed it's 157 pages in length, so I doubt that I'll read anywhere near the whole thing. Intended to go back and respond to your earlier post after lunch, but got sidetracked and haven't got to it, yet. One thing I can comment on is that the Heller majority opinion is just that: Opinion, not indisputable fact. Of course its just an opinion. One that happens to be far, far, far, far better researched, documented, and supported than your opinions in this thread. What did the minority opinion say? Did it agree with the majority opinion? Anyone who's honest in this discussion and who has read even a few of the Federalist papers and other writing from that time period by those who were involved with the Constitution/Bill of Rights knows that the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right and that the militia/free state portion of the prefatory clause was just laying out one of the reasons as to why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" by the government. But of course there will always be people, as you appear to be, who will disagree with the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to the Militia. If the right to keep and bear arms was viewed by the framers as an individual right unconnected to the militia, why did the framers explicitly connect it to the militia? If the prefatory clause is so inconsequential, why include it at all? Why not just simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Because the framers were fans of "a free state". Reading comprehension much??? Armed citizens (A well regulated militia) keep the state free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:18:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explain, please: How is a free state not a state? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
doesn't say the security of the state... "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 Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. Since the government has repeatedly infringed upon and restricted those "inalienable rights," you are obviously wrong. No. You replaced free state with State. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd A as a free state is no in any way synonymous with "State". Explain, please: How is a free state not a state? A free state is a state but a "State" is not necessarily a free state. This is not hard stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:25:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did the minority opinion say? Did it agree with the majority opinion? Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did the minority opinion say? Did it agree with the majority opinion? Please read the entire Heller Opinion if you have not done so already. You many possibly learn some things (or maybe not <shrugs>). For further fun read the McDonald opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf. Quoted:
If the right to keep and bear arms was viewed by the framers as an individual right unconnected to the militia, why did the framers explicitly connect it to the militia? If the prefatory clause is so inconsequential, why include it at all? Why not just simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It is not explicitly connected to the Militia. That was explained in the text I quoted previously from the Heller opinion. Here is that quote again: "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." (page 6) Note the Heller opinion does not say it announces "the" purpose. Instead it announces "a" purpose. Further from what I quoted previously: "It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution." (page 29) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:28:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explain, please: How is a free state not a state? LOL. Ok again from Heller... "b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free coun-try’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution. There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." (page 27-28) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:30:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. <sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. I misread your reply while multitasking. My bad. You said that you don't operate on belief. I should have asked you "what you think." Based on your assertion above, I would expect the answer to be "none." However, you operate on belief in order to obtain knowledge. By that, I mean belief is unverified suspicion (intentional redundancy). If it's July and the sun is shining, then I believe it's probably warm outside, but I don't know that until I measure the temperature. Back on topic, if you mean that you first obtain knowledge before acting, then I'm there with you. Please enlighten us as to why there are no rights in nature (first define what you mean by "nature"). Generally speaking, we each have our own operating systems located between our ears. That's knowledge - not belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:30:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you show up if the government sent you a letter saying that they had determined that your life was no longer needed and they had decided to terminate you and you were to show up at 8:00am tommrow morning at the federal court house? If you would not show then you believe in the right to life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? Erroneous conclusion. If I would not show, it does not mean that I "believe" in a supposed "right" to life. It just means that I choose to try to keep living. There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. If you have sufficient power, you can do anything you want, regardless of whether other people think you're right or wrong, moral or immoral. If you lack sufficient power, others can do anything they want, regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, moral or immoral. The Second Amendment is a good example. The "right" to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable, yet it has been violated repeatedly over the last 100 or so years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:33:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Supreme Court: There are currently 8 Supreme Court Justices. 3 are conservative, 4 are communists, 1 is a weathervane. Clinton will appoint another communist, giving them a majority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? Please help put my mind at ease. Thanks. __________________________________ Libertas illis volentibus ad pugnam. Supreme Court: There are currently 8 Supreme Court Justices. 3 are conservative, 4 are communists, 1 is a weathervane. Clinton will appoint another communist, giving them a majority. Ha, we wish! After the recent case challenging the Lautenberg Amendment on domestic violence prohibition of gun rights we only have ONE conservative constructionist SCOTUS judge. Clarence Thomas |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:34:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS. In nature everything has a right to self defense to it's best ability. While the gazelle might not have a good method of defense no high authority is restricting the gazelle from doing it's best. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. <sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. BS. In nature everything has a right to self defense to it's best ability. While the gazelle might not have a good method of defense no high authority is restricting the gazelle from doing it's best. Does the gazelle have a right to life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:38:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She could try, but it would be very difficult to actually get the guns if she tried, it would be another turning point in the history of the US. It could result in some very bad unforseen situations, she thinks she is all powerful, but she would not have the power she thinks she would. This time around, there is simply to many of us that are watching and paying attention to what is going on, remember when Slick Willly did it, we didn't have the internet, and we were not quite as well informed as we are these days. So now we wouldn't have to physically be around each other to bitch and bloviate about what we are going to do, then go home and do nothing? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:39:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Erroneous conclusion. If I would not show, it does not mean that I "believe" in a supposed "right" to life. It just means that I choose to try to keep living. There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. If you have sufficient power, you can do anything you want, regardless of whether other people think you're right or wrong, moral or immoral. If you lack sufficient power, others can do anything they want, regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, moral or immoral. The Second Amendment is a good example. The "right" to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable, yet it has been violated repeatedly over the last 100 or so years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? Erroneous conclusion. If I would not show, it does not mean that I "believe" in a supposed "right" to life. It just means that I choose to try to keep living. There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. If you have sufficient power, you can do anything you want, regardless of whether other people think you're right or wrong, moral or immoral. If you lack sufficient power, others can do anything they want, regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, moral or immoral. The Second Amendment is a good example. The "right" to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable, yet it has been violated repeatedly over the last 100 or so years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:45:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Erroneous conclusion. If I would not show, it does not mean that I "believe" in a supposed "right" to life. It just means that I choose to try to keep living. There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. If you have sufficient power, you can do anything you want, regardless of whether other people think you're right or wrong, moral or immoral. If you lack sufficient power, others can do anything they want, regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, moral or immoral. The Second Amendment is a good example. The "right" to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable, yet it has been violated repeatedly over the last 100 or so years. "You can choose a ready guide..." 
Rights exist (since you made a choice  ). They can't be practiced in most places without sufficient power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:45:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So now we wouldn't have to physically be around each other to bitch and bloviate about what we are going to do, then go home and do nothing? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
She could try, but it would be very difficult to actually get the guns if she tried, it would be another turning point in the history of the US. It could result in some very bad unforseen situations, she thinks she is all powerful, but she would not have the power she thinks she would. This time around, there is simply to many of us that are watching and paying attention to what is going on, remember when Slick Willly did it, we didn't have the internet, and we were not quite as well informed as we are these days. So now we wouldn't have to physically be around each other to bitch and bloviate about what we are going to do, then go home and do nothing? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile What the fuck are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:46:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the gazelle have a right to life? Can a gazelle make reasoned decisions and act on them, or does the gazelle act on instinct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:48:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can a gazelle make reasoned decisions and act on them, or does the gazelle act on instinct? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does the gazelle have a right to life? Can a gazelle make reasoned decisions and act on them, or does the gazelle act on instinct? Oh God, we are really going to go there? Christ!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:50:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. Well the writers of the Declaration of Independence would disagree with you: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The idea was that the people have "rights", and government have "powers". The Preamble to The Bill of Rights: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Just because states and the federal government routinely abuse their powers (with the courts concurrence) with respect to both the 2nd Amendment and certain individual state constitutions doesn't mean that there are not individual right(s) to keep and bear arms. One either believes they have individual rights, or they believe they have privileges that are granted by and subject to the whims of the state/government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:51:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Probably,America is full of weaklings who are scared of guns and other people. They think the police and military can protect them,they pretty much don't have the fire inside them and will to appreciate the fact that you are responsible for your own safety.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:55:01 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the gazelle have a right to life? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I had no premise since I offered another option in my question. Anyway, you answered my question in the sense that I have a better idea of your (admitted) belief. That you have a belief is evidence of "rights" existing. <sigh> One more time... I HAVE NO BELIEFS. THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN NATURE. BS. In nature everything has a right to self defense to it's best ability. While the gazelle might not have a good method of defense no high authority is restricting the gazelle from doing it's best. Does the gazelle have a right to life? Of course not silly. You don't either, but you do have a natural right to defend your life. Again this stuff is pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:57:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably,America is full of weaklings who are scared of guns and other people. They think the police and military can protect them,they pretty much don't have the fire inside them and will to appreciate the fact that you are responsible for your own safety. Too many are afraid to actually fight for their rights, we just don't have the moxey we used to, people are afraid to die to defend what they believe in, even if it is a shit hole neighborhood in Chicago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 7:57:30 PM EDT
[#49]
it depend on the congress and the senate
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 8:40:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what gives you the authority to make the decision to keep on living or to die? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? Erroneous conclusion. If I would not show, it does not mean that I "believe" in a supposed "right" to life. It just means that I choose to try to keep living. There are no such things as "rights." There is only power. If you have sufficient power, you can do anything you want, regardless of whether other people think you're right or wrong, moral or immoral. If you lack sufficient power, others can do anything they want, regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, moral or immoral. The Second Amendment is a good example. The "right" to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable, yet it has been violated repeatedly over the last 100 or so years. So what gives you the authority to make the decision to keep on living or to die? Your question makes no sense. As long as my brain is capable of making decisions, why should I need authorization to use it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
