Open Season On Gun Laws, They Will Be Struck Down

[SMTA]

I would say it is a simple concept for dolts. The question is who is the dolt.
You understand the phrase, cold dead hands. Many say it and in doing so can no longer call themselves law abiding citizens. Although legally they break no law in saying those words. Morally they have chosen to break laws if they deem it necessary. That is how criminals do things, not law abiding citizens. Your average law abiding gun owner has a dichotomy, not a simple concept.

An old saying doesn’t mean shit
I don’t give a shit “what many say” - that carry’s zero weight in a court of law - nor does it violate any morals.
Your criminal assertions are pure garbage
Hard core pro gunners are as ****ing stupid as hard core anti gunners

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, it does create state-organized militias. The framers were opposed to a standing army. Why would the framers want state militias if they had a national standing professional army? The idea of that standing army is relatively recent and post-Civil War. Maybe even WW1.

You are hopelessly confused. HAND

 

[rahl]

Yes, it does create state-organized militias.

No, it doesn't. The militia acts do.

 

[Rucker61]

They seem to ignore that the second amendment creates a well-regulated militia of citizen soldiers. We call that the National Guard.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 gave the power over the militia to Congress, and they've used that power 5 times in Militia Acts to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia. The Second Amendment can neither protect the arms of the militia or protect any right to bear arms in a militia.

The militia is "well regulated" in 10 USC 246 under the powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16.



U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


The Second Amendment can only limit the power of government, not expand it. That limitation was expressed in the clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Nothing in the Bill of Rights limits the rights of the people.

The framers were opposed to the standing army that we have no because of the many problems that it creates, most of those problems we now refer to as the Military Industrial complex. They supported the idea of citizen-soldiers that were overseen by a well-trained professional officer corps that they would create at West Point. The current situation of violent public yahoos with guns is definitely now what they had in mind in 1783.

They funded a standing army from 1776 to current day. Congress reorganized the small standing army post-Revolutionary War into the Legion of the United States in 1792, the very same year that they passed the first two Militia Acts. If they were opposed to a standing army, they went about it in a strange way.

Why the Second Amendment protects a ‘well-regulated militia’ but not a private citizen militia

A recent federal court ruling appeared to expand Second Amendment rights to private citizen militias, which a historian of early America explains is not what the founders intended.

theconversation.com

Given that Congress can disarm the militia, or refuse to let any serve in the militia, the militia isn't protected by the Second Amendment at all.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Gun owners need to stop their needless crying and whining, and recognize that the real world requires compromise and common sense for gun ownership

Gun owners demanding government only operate within the strictly limited and defined powers granted to it in the Constitution, is not "needless crying and whining".

The demand by anti-gunners that citizens just accept and surrender to government ignoring those limits and exceeding the powers granted to it and violating the rights of the people, is not a "compromise" and no law enacted under those conditions can be called "common sense".

The easiest way for you to never be bothered hearing gun owners "cry" and "whine" about our rights, is for you leftist statist authoritarians to just respect and obey the Constitution.

That would be a compromise and common sense, give it a try!

 

[Moon]

Yes, it does create state-organized militias. The framers were opposed to a standing army. Why would the framers want state militias if they had a national standing professional army? The idea of that standing army is relatively recent and post-Civil War. Maybe even WW1.

Where in the 2A are state organized militias created?

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Yes, it does create state-organized militias. The framers were opposed to a standing army. Why would the framers want state militias if they had a national standing professional army? The idea of that standing army is relatively recent and post-Civil War. Maybe even WW1.

Please, just stop . . .

 

[SMTA]

Gun owners demanding government only operate within the strictly limited and defined powers granted to it in the Constitution, is not "needless crying and whining".

The demand by anti-gunners that citizens just accept and surrender to government ignoring those limits and exceeding the powers granted to it and violating the rights of the people, is not a "compromise" and no law enacted under those conditions can be called "common sense".

The easiest way for you to never be bothered hearing gun owners "cry" and "whine" about our rights, is for you leftist statist authoritarians to just respect and obey the Constitution.

That would be a compromise and common sense, give it a try!

Like I said, constant crying and whining
It’s pathetic, childish, and embarrassing
And I’m not leftist, as you continue to cry more

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Like I said, constant crying and whining
It’s pathetic, childish, and embarrassing
And I’m not leftist, as you continue to cry more

And the duck goes waddle, quack, waddle, quack . . .

 

[SMTA]

And the duck goes waddle, quack, waddle, quack . . .

Read my history before running your mouth

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, it does create state-organized militias. The framers were opposed to a standing army. Why would the framers want state militias if they had a national standing professional army? The idea of that standing army is relatively recent and post-Civil War. Maybe even WW1.

1784 The regular army consisted of only two detachments to guard military supplies.
1785 First American Regiment
1791 Second American Regiment.
1792 The Legion of the United States was formed from the remnants of the First and Second Regiments
1796 United States Army

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Read my history before running your mouth

More waddle, quack, waddle, quack???

I have zero interest in your history, I have seen more than enough to recognize you have nothing of value to say.

 

[Lisa]

Where in the 2A are state organized militias created?

Clause 15-16 of the US Constitution.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Clause 15-16 of the US Constitution.

That's the 2nd Amendment?

Please, just stop . . .

 

[rahl]

Clause 15-16 of the US Constitution.

so not in the 2nd A, as you incorrectly claimed.

 

[Moon]

Clause 15-16 of the US Constitution.

So not the second amendment.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

You can blame Pennsylvania in 1776 for that.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

that was and is the only conclusion possible

What about the 200+ years before that?

 

[VanceMack]

LOL… sue all the car and knife makers you want, what is the firearms industry afraid of?

Piece of shit leftist scumbags and their cohorts using civil court actions with similarly minded scumbag leftist judges circumventing the Constitution. Having to endure the financial impact of fighting against those scumbags in court.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

The 2A did not “create” anything and did not deny the ability to have a standing Army.

Do you understand the reasoning behind not wanting a standing army in the framers time?

Does anyone here?

Back then every country with a standing army was either using it to oppress their own citizens or drafting them into it to be aggressively expansionist. The founder wanted neither of those things here and so created the second amendment with it's explicit (but now ignored) statement about Militias so they would have an armed force to draw on at need. Since there was (deliberately) no national infrastructure for it the militiamen were expected to both provide and maintain their own weapons. Even the cannon were privately owned in the beginning. that changed as things scaled up through the war of 1812 and continued through both world wars with the government providing more and more of the equipment, but it wasn't until the aftermath of WWII that the US got a large scale standing professional military maintained mostly to deal with cold war fears.

 

[rahl]

What about the 200+ years before that?

what about it? The 2nd A has meant the same thing since it's inception. The individuals right to keep and bear arms.

 

[SMTA]

More waddle, quack, waddle, quack???

I have zero interest in your history, I have seen more than enough to recognize you have nothing of value to say.

Snort. Nothing that you are capable of understanding.
My assessment was spot on as usual

 

[BlueTex]

Piece of shit leftist scumbags and their cohorts using civil court actions with similarly minded scumbag leftist judges circumventing the Constitution. Having to endure the financial impact of fighting against those scumbags in court.

LMAO.. Where in the constitution does it say firearms manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits?

 

[Willie Orwontee]

What about the 200+ years before that?

200+ years of the philosophical, historical and legal framework of foundational rights theory of the Constitution is what the Court was basing their holding on.

For 146 years and counting, SCOTUS has consistently reaffirmed the principle of pre-existing rights, specifically for the right to arms.

My post cites that progression of the principle of original, fundamental, never surrendered, fully retained rights, as it relates specifically to the right to arms.

I'll try again . . .

Because the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence, that means "interpreting" words that the right does not depend on, to invent conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the RKBA merely recognized and secured by the 2ndA, is completely illegitimate.

That "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon [the Constitution] for its existence" also means one cannot argue that the right to arms of the citizen is dependent in any manner upon a structure that is itself, ENTIRELY dependent on the Constitution for its existence, (the organized, Article I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 militia).

To argue that the right to arms of the citizen is dependent on a citizen's attachment to the militia, is arguing a legal and logical incongruity.

.

.

 

[Rucker61]

Don't be ridiculous.

That's where we first saw an individual right to bear arms for self defense codified into law.