• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control 1999 Style

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The 2008 Heller decision, and the subsequent Chicago decision are unprecedented in our nation's history. What goes around, comes around. The NRA and their Libertarian lawyers have hijacked the Supreme Court. Here is a 1999 article about Amendment 2 and Gun Control.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2nd-amendment-reality-check/

There is one rather important group that has never said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, the Supreme Court is so convinced that there is no such right, the Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, reports CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg. Back then, when the justices looked at the framers' words, it ruled repeatedly that it was militias - National Guards - that have a right to arms. Individuals do not.

...
Records from the time show just how few guns there were. A census by Massachusetts in 1789 found less than six percent of the people owned a gun. In 1810 the first U.S. census found 4.3 percent of the public had a firearm.
Those guns that did exist were strictly regulated before and after the Second Amendment was passed by all 13 states.

Among those barred from owning a gun were slaves, free blacks, property-less whites, Catholics and other non-Protestants.

"There wasn't a notion of a right to own guns in the way we think of rights today," Bogus said.

History molds today's debates about guns -- a history filtered by myth as much as fact.


What goes around, comes around. This nation will return to gun control sanity, especially in light of all the mass shootings. Expect a similar backlash by a non-Libertarian SCOTUS, except about tenfold.
 
Last edited:

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,083
Reaction score
11,182
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 2008 Heller decision, and the subsequent Chicago decision are unprecedented in our nation's history. What goes around, comes around. The NRA and their Libertarian lawyers have hijacked the Supreme Court. Here is a 1999 article about Amendment 2 and Gun Control.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2nd-amendment-reality-check/

There is one rather important group that has never said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, the Supreme Court is so convinced that there is no such right, the Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, reports CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg. Back then, when the justices looked at the framers' words, it ruled repeatedly that it was militias - National Guards - that have a right to arms. Individuals do not.

...
Records from the time show just how few guns there were. A census by Massachusetts in 1789 found less than six percent of the people owned a gun. In 1810 the first U.S. census found 4.3 percent of the public had a firearm.
Those guns that did exist were strictly regulated before and after the Second Amendment was passed by all 13 states.

Among those barred from owning a gun were slaves, free blacks, property-less whites, Catholics and other non-Protestants.

"There wasn't a notion of a right to own guns in the way we think of rights today," Bogus said.

History molds today's debates about guns -- a history filtered by myth as much as fact.


What goes around, comes around. This nation will return to gun control sanity, especially in light of all the mass shootings. Expect a similar backlash by a non-Libertarian SCOTUS, except about tenfold.

So you think that blacks and non protestants so be barred from owning guns?
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you think that blacks and non protestants so be barred from owning guns?

For many, many years, the States and local Municipalities were handling their gun control. They had a much better pulse of the problems in their areas/communities. Big brother has taken control.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
33,738
Reaction score
17,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For many, many years, the States and local Municipalities were handling their gun control. They had a much better pulse of the problems in their areas/communities. Big brother has taken control.
States and municipalities firearms laws/ordinances are, and always have been, subject to federal government oversight, IAW the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
States and municipalities firearms laws/ordinances are, and always have been, subject to federal government oversight, IAW the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS decisions, for the most part, have always resulted in abstention at the Federal level.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,083
Reaction score
11,182
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For many, many years, the States and local Municipalities were handling their gun control. They had a much better pulse of the problems in their areas/communities. Big brother has taken control.

:rofl: big brother has taken control by allowing freedom :rofl :rofl
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,871
Reaction score
24,964
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The 2008 Heller decision, and the subsequent Chicago decision are unprecedented in our nation's history. What goes around, comes around. The NRA and their Libertarian lawyers have hijacked the Supreme Court...

Point of information: ALL SCOTUS decisions to incorporate rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are "unprecedented." Those decisions SET the national precedent.

….There is one rather important group that has never said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, the Supreme Court is so convinced that there is no such right, the Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, reports CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg. Back then, when the justices looked at the framers' words, it ruled repeatedly that it was militias - National Guards - that have a right to arms. Individuals do not.

...
Records from the time show just how few guns there were. A census by Massachusetts in 1789 found less than six percent of the people owned a gun. In 1810 the first U.S. census found 4.3 percent of the public had a firearm.
Those guns that did exist were strictly regulated before and after the Second Amendment was passed by all 13 states.

Among those barred from owning a gun were slaves, free blacks, property-less whites, Catholics and other non-Protestants...

History molds today's debates about guns -- a history filtered by myth as much as fact.


What goes around, comes around. This nation will return to gun control sanity, especially in light of all the mass shootings. Expect a similar backlash by a non-Libertarian SCOTUS, except about tenfold.

Some of your "facts" are a bit wrong:

1. The 1810 Census did not ask any questions about gun ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1810_United_States_Census (and) https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/1810_2.html

2. There really isn't much of any "registration" information but one study of probate inventories of several States (Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia, and Massachusetts) of that era showed:

Guns are found in 50-73% of the male estates in each of the eight databases and in 6-38% of the female estates in each of the first four databases.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

3. Pointing out that slaves were not allowed to have guns is a bit disingenuous, since at the time such persons were considered property and property doesn't "own" anything. Does your bed or sofa "own" anything in your house? Thus if you are trying to figure out percentages of gun ownership from general census data including the number of slaves, that is just deceptive.

4. Now some States did have racist laws prohibiting free Blacks as well as Indians from owning weapons no argument there. But Native Americans (even "friendly" ones) were considered an ongoing threat to public safety as foreign (tribal) nationals.

5. The 1939 case referred to is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

Gun control advocates argue that, for over six decades, the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, have cited Miller in rejecting challenges to federal firearms regulations.[7]

Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, such advocates frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns (with 20 inch barrels) have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

However, we also have the following from United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876):

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

Essentially, Cruikshank allowed States to regulate firearms because the Second Amendment was not "incorporated" to apply to the States at that time.

This is no longer true today, as SCOTUS finally incorporated the Second Amendment as applying to the States via McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Your argument no longer holds any water. Sorry pal.
 
Last edited:

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Point of information: ALL SCOTUS decisions to incorporate rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are "unprecedented." Those decisions SET the precedent.



Some of your "facts" are a bit wrong:

1. The 1810 Census did not ask any questions about gun ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1810_United_States_Census (and) https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/1810_2.html

2. There really isn't much of any "registration" information but one study of probate inventories of several States (Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia, and Massachusetts) of that era showed:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

3. Pointing out that slaves were not allowed to have guns is a bit disingenuous, since at the time such persons were considered property and property doesn't "own" anything. Does your bed or sofa "own" anything in your house? Thus if you are trying to figure out percentages of gun ownership from general census data including the number of slaves, that is just deceptive.

4. Now some States did have racist laws prohibiting free Blacks as well as Indians from owning weapons no argument there. So that part is correct. But Native Americans (even "friendly" ones) were considered an ongoing threat to public safety as foreign (tribal) nationals.

5. The 1939 case referred to is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

However, we also have the following from United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

Essentially, Cruikshank allowed States to regulate firearms because the Second Amendment was not "incorporated" to apply to the States at that time.

This is no longer true today, as SCOTUS finally incorporated the Second Amendment as applying to the States via McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Your argument no longer holds any water. Sorry pal.

First of all, I don't know you, so I don't consider you a "pal". Secondly, I said this - "SCOTUS decisions, for the most part, have always resulted in abstention at the Federal level". You found the very few exceptions, of which I was aware. Congratulations.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
33,738
Reaction score
17,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SCOTUS decisions, for the most part, have always resulted in abstention at the Federal level.
Which do you claim, “for the most part” or “always”?

SCOTUS has declined to accept many states issue 2nd Amendment cases, but those that it has ruled on have established lasting national precedence.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,871
Reaction score
24,964
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First of all, I don't know you, so I don't consider you a "pal". Secondly, I said this - "SCOTUS decisions, for the most part, have always resulted in abstention at the Federal level". You found the very few exceptions, of which I was aware. Congratulations.

Correction. THIS is what you said:

The 2008 Heller decision, and the subsequent Chicago decision are unprecedented in our nation's history. What goes around, comes around. The NRA and their Libertarian lawyers have hijacked the Supreme Court. Here is a 1999 article about Amendment 2 and Gun Control.

What goes around, comes around. This nation will return to gun control sanity, especially in light of all the mass shootings. Expect a similar backlash by a non-Libertarian SCOTUS, except about tenfold.

Everything else was italics quotations from your source material right?

I properly responded to what you actually said in your OP. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Point of information: ALL SCOTUS decisions to incorporate rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are "unprecedented." Those decisions SET the national precedent.



Some of your "facts" are a bit wrong:

1. The 1810 Census did not ask any questions about gun ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1810_United_States_Census (and) https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/1810_2.html

2. There really isn't much of any "registration" information but one study of probate inventories of several States (Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia, and Massachusetts) of that era showed:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

3. Pointing out that slaves were not allowed to have guns is a bit disingenuous, since at the time such persons were considered property and property doesn't "own" anything. Does your bed or sofa "own" anything in your house? Thus if you are trying to figure out percentages of gun ownership from general census data including the number of slaves, that is just deceptive.

4. Now some States did have racist laws prohibiting free Blacks as well as Indians from owning weapons no argument there. But Native Americans (even "friendly" ones) were considered an ongoing threat to public safety as foreign (tribal) nationals.

5. The 1939 case referred to is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

However, we also have the following from United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

Essentially, Cruikshank allowed States to regulate firearms because the Second Amendment was not "incorporated" to apply to the States at that time.

This is no longer true today, as SCOTUS finally incorporated the Second Amendment as applying to the States via McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Your argument no longer holds any water. Sorry pal.

His arguments are pathetic. he pretends that his revisionist interpretation of the second amendment is based only on the words-and ignores that it flies in the face of most scholarship, the intent of the founders, every supreme court case that actually addresses the issue, and most importantly-the ENTIRE FOUNDATION that the constitution was based upon

in other words-he has ZERO support in any legitimate quarter for his nonsense
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
His arguments are pathetic. he pretends that his revisionist interpretation of the second amendment is based only on the words-and ignores that it flies in the face of most scholarship, the intent of the founders, every supreme court case that actually addresses the issue, and most importantly-the ENTIRE FOUNDATION that the constitution was based upon

in other words-he has ZERO support in any legitimate quarter for his nonsense

Said from the guy who supports the NRA's cherry-picking of the 2nd Amendment.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Which do you claim, “for the most part” or “always”?

SCOTUS has declined to accept many states issue 2nd Amendment cases, but those that it has ruled on have established lasting national precedence.

Very few cases. Prior to 2008, you can cite the number on one hand. And they weren't such a revelation as you may be contending. Please cite the actual cases if you think they are relevant.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Correction. THIS is what you said:



Everything else was italics quotations from your source material right?

I properly responded to what you actually said in your OP. :shrug:

I said the other in a later post. You mentioned precedence. The precedence (prior to 2008) is that SCOTUS didn't intervene. That's the precedence, aptly illustrated in this historic article from a very historic institution.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
...
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost.
...
Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
...
Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry.
...
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Said from the guy who supports the NRA's cherry-picking of the 2nd Amendment.

you constantly lie and worse yet, you ignore rational arguments that you have been presented. The NRA has never been an organization that was designed to lobby for the power of the several states. It was an organization of gun owners and gun users. So why would the NRA even mention the first part of the amendment which is a federalism issue-state power vs federal power? Your rant is akin to religious groups (or anti religious groups) focusing on say on freedom of religion, rather than the freedom to petition government. You are mainly an NRA hater for political reasons and you whine about alleged malfeasance by the NRA and that whining is irrational and stupid. You make up a fanciful mis-interpretation of the second amendment in an effort to justify punitive and idiotic gun laws designed to harass people who don't buy into your leftist dreams
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you constantly lie and worse yet, you ignore rational arguments that you have been presented. The NRA has never been an organization that was designed to lobby for the power of the several states. It was an organization of gun owners and gun users. So why would the NRA even mention the first part of the amendment which is a federalism issue-state power vs federal power? Your rant is akin to religious groups (or anti religious groups) focusing on say on freedom of religion, rather than the freedom to petition government. You are mainly an NRA hater for political reasons and you whine about alleged malfeasance by the NRA and that whining is irrational and stupid. You make up a fanciful mis-interpretation of the second amendment in an effort to justify punitive and idiotic gun laws designed to harass people who don't buy into your leftist dreams

The NRA is leaving out a fundamental part of the 2nd Amendment. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
33,738
Reaction score
17,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Very few cases. Prior to 2008, you can cite the number on one hand. And they weren't such a revelation as you may be contending. Please cite the actual cases if you think they are relevant.
I don’t contend that there were many or that they were revelations. That doesn’t even make sense. I said they established lasting national precedence, such as Presser v Illinois, and U.S. v Miller.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,740
Reaction score
14,942
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The world moves on. Whining and wishing we could go back to some other time is mental masturbation.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The 2008 Heller decision, and the subsequent Chicago decision are unprecedented in our nation's history. What goes around, comes around. The NRA and their Libertarian lawyers have hijacked the Supreme Court. Here is a 1999 article about Amendment 2 and Gun Control.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2nd-amendment-reality-check/

There is one rather important group that has never said the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun: the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, the Supreme Court is so convinced that there is no such right, the Court hasn't heard a Second Amendment case since 1939, reports CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg. Back then, when the justices looked at the framers' words, it ruled repeatedly that it was militias - National Guards - that have a right to arms. Individuals do not.

...
Records from the time show just how few guns there were. A census by Massachusetts in 1789 found less than six percent of the people owned a gun. In 1810 the first U.S. census found 4.3 percent of the public had a firearm.
Those guns that did exist were strictly regulated before and after the Second Amendment was passed by all 13 states.

Among those barred from owning a gun were slaves, free blacks, property-less whites, Catholics and other non-Protestants.

"There wasn't a notion of a right to own guns in the way we think of rights today," Bogus said.

History molds today's debates about guns -- a history filtered by myth as much as fact.


What goes around, comes around. This nation will return to gun control sanity, especially in light of all the mass shootings. Expect a similar backlash by a non-Libertarian SCOTUS, except about tenfold.

1982, some 17 years prior to 1999:

Democratic viewpoint:

"The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson
proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for
an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example,
recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State."
Even though the tradition has deep roots, its application to modern America is the subject
of intense controversy. Indeed, it is a controversy into which the Congress is beginning, once again,
to immerse itself. I have personally been disappointed that so important an issue should have
generally been so thinly researched and so minimally debated both in Congress and the courts. Our
Supreme Court has but once touched on its meaning at the Federal level and that decision, now
nearly a half-century old, is so ambiguous that any school of thought can find some support in it. All
Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to the States came in the last
century, when constitutional law was far different than it is today. As ranking minority member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I, therefore, welcome the effort which led to this report—a
report based not only upon the independent research of the subcommittee staff, but also upon full
and fair presentation of the cases by all interested groups and individual scholars"

In agreement with the subcommittee decision:

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major
commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected
is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The NRA is leaving out a fundamental part of the 2nd Amendment. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.
more oozing revisionist BS. can you find a single document from any founder that supports the bovine excrement you continue to drop on this board. Did you ever read what the founders wrote-such as something to the effect that the constitution will never be construed to allow disarming citizens? Do you not understand the 9th and 10th amendments?
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Very few cases. Prior to 2008, you can cite the number on one hand. And they weren't such a revelation as you may be contending. Please cite the actual cases if you think they are relevant.

US v Miller. Miller's entire appeal was based upon an individual right to keep and bear arms. If the courts, including SCOTUS, didn't see that the right existed, Miller would have had no standing for an appeal. His case would have never been reviewed by SCOTUS or any lower court.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
US v Miller. Miller's entire appeal was based upon an individual right to keep and bear arms. If the courts, including SCOTUS, didn't see that the right existed, Miller would have had no standing for an appeal. His case would have never been reviewed by SCOTUS or any lower court.

Both sides of the gun debate choose that decision as a basis for their reasoning.

In #15 I presented numerous incidences of gun control, much closer to the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. These cases, along with many others, clearly indicate that there was never any consideration of a right to own any firearm, in any location. It's utter nonsense, and many state laws today reveal the same thing. Historically the SCOTUS has not acted, until the Libertarian lawyers of the NRA took control in 2008.

As for the Constitutionality, I will agree that this country has a history of the right for a citizen to own a gun. However, based on the cited historic references, and the historical military climate of the late 18th century, I believe the Constitutional protection is only for individuals in the militia.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
more oozing revisionist BS. can you find a single document from any founder that supports the bovine excrement you continue to drop on this board. Did you ever read what the founders wrote-such as something to the effect that the constitution will never be construed to allow disarming citizens? Do you not understand the 9th and 10th amendments?

Your disgusting 4-letter word rhetoric does nothing to advance your position.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Both sides of the gun debate choose that decision as a basis for their reasoning.

In #15 I presented numerous incidences of gun control, much closer to the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. These cases, along with many others, clearly indicate that there was never any consideration of a right to own any firearm, in any location. It's utter nonsense, and many state laws today reveal the same thing. Historically the SCOTUS has not acted, until the Libertarian lawyers of the NRA took control in 2008.

As for the Constitutionality, I will agree that this country has a history of the right for a citizen to own a gun. However, based on the cited historic references, and the historical military climate of the late 18th century, I believe the Constitutional protection is only for individuals in the militia.

You can choose to believe what you will. Various state constitutions prior to and subsequent to ratification clearly indicate an individual right to own a gun for self defense, independent of the right to own a gun for militia service. That's a battle you're not going to win, here or in the real world. Your choices in the real world are to continue to work with Democrats who will pass gun legislation that violations 2A protections or find ways to work within the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom