SCOTUS said that the 2nd amendment allowed people to use guns for self defense

[justabubba]

lol. You appeal to ignorance, like usual. In this case, post number two hundred seventy-three.

or you could answer the damn question
that you consistently refuse to explain your stupid posts means you cannot expect to be taken seriously

you insist the second amendment is abundantly clear
despite that its interpretation has been a topic ongoing for decades

Cornell Law School notes: "Such language [found immediately below] has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."

"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."

who is in the militia
how do we recognize the militia
who is excluded from being in the militia
how is a well regulated militia distinguished and apart from an inadequately regulated militia
what happens to the inadequately regulated militia relative to the bearing of arms
define the limits of what constitutes "arms" and tell us what they are not
are the arms to be born only while participating with the militia or when not participating
is one's right to bear arms infringed if that militia member is unable to bear specific arms disallowed by the government
is the government able to control arms that can and cannot be born
is the government able to restrict anyone from bearing arms given this Constitutional right

if you can answer such questions in a way in which we all agree, then i will accept your presentation that the second amendment is clear

however, if you cannot, then your position must be found stupid, at best

 

[CLAX1911]

LOL, the references for the Wiki page are found at the bottom of the page.

La-dee-da

 

[danielpalos]

or you could answer the damn question
that you consistently refuse to explain your stupid posts means you cannot expect to be taken seriously

you insist the second amendment is abundantly clear
despite that its interpretation has been a topic ongoing for decades

Cornell Law School notes: "Such language [found immediately below] has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."



who is in the militia
how do we recognize the militia
who is excluded from being in the militia
how is a well regulated militia distinguished and apart from an inadequately regulated militia
what happens to the inadequately regulated militia relative to the bearing of arms
define the limits of what constitutes "arms" and tell us what they are not
are the arms to be born only while participating with the militia or when not participating
is one's right to bear arms infringed if that militia member is unable to bear specific arms disallowed by the government
is the government able to control arms that can and cannot be born
is the government able to restrict anyone from bearing arms given this Constitutional right

if you can answer such questions in a way in which we all agree, then i will accept your presentation that the second amendment is clear

however, if you cannot, then your position must be found stupid, at best

Your appeal to the ignorance of special pleading is worse. Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy do that.

 

[justabubba]

Your appeal to the ignorance of special pleading is worse. Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy do that.

your absence of an answer to those questions demonstrates that the second amendment is not so clear

 

[danielpalos]

your absence of an answer to those questions demonstrates that the second amendment is not so clear

Those questions could be begging the question and special pleading.

What part of our Second Amendment is unclear?

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.

 

[prometeus]

Cornell Law School notes: "Such language [found immediately below] has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."

In the absence of clarity, the only recourse is the interpretation of the Amendment by the highest court in the land.

 

[Rich2018]

lol. You appeal to ignorance, like usual. In this case, post number two hundred seventy-three.

As pathetic as it is predictable.

Post #231:

"...whenever you can't answer, you post some meaningless phrase. How about a definition of an "appeal to ignorance" now ?"


To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

 

[Rich2018]

La-dee-da

Try reading

Was the actual National Guard web page of any use to you ?

 

[Captain Adverse]

or you could answer the damn question
that you consistently refuse to explain your stupid posts means you cannot expect to be taken seriously

you insist the second amendment is abundantly clear
despite that its interpretation has been a topic ongoing for decades

Cornell Law School notes: "Such language [found immediately below] has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."



who is in the militia
how do we recognize the militia
who is excluded from being in the militia
how is a well regulated militia distinguished and apart from an inadequately regulated militia
what happens to the inadequately regulated militia relative to the bearing of arms
define the limits of what constitutes "arms" and tell us what they are not
are the arms to be born only while participating with the militia or when not participating
is one's right to bear arms infringed if that militia member is unable to bear specific arms disallowed by the government
is the government able to control arms that can and cannot be born
is the government able to restrict anyone from bearing arms given this Constitutional right

if you can answer such questions in a way in which we all agree, then i will accept your presentation that the second amendment is clear

however, if you cannot, then your position must be found stupid, at best

I don't know about HIS position, but every one of your questions referring to "militia" has been resolved by the SCOTUS, first in:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

and that this Constitutional Right is incorporated as applying to the States in:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.

McDonald v. Chicago :: 561 U.S. 742 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

You should know that very well by now as this has been discussed in the past. That knocks SEVEN of your TEN questions out of play.

As for the other three?

…define the limits of what constitutes "arms" and tell us what they are not
is the government able to control arms that can and cannot be born
is the government able to restrict anyone from bearing arms given this Constitutional right

Heller also answers all of those questions.

End of story. :coffeepap:

What part of our Second Amendment do you not understand? Your irrelevant diversions are simply that.

He is asking you to show your basis. I have provided you with that foundation in my response above.

Next time someone asks you this kind of "list," just smack them down with the facts.

Read Heller especially, and it answers those 3 non-militia questions clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

As pathetic as it is predictable.

Post #231:

"...whenever you can't answer, you post some meaningless phrase. How about a definition of an "appeal to ignorance" now ?"


To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

What part of our Second Amendment do you not understand? Your irrelevant diversions are simply that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Try reading

Was the actual National Guard web page of any use to you ?

It doesn't support your claim.

 

[justabubba]

I don't know about HIS position, but every one of your questions referring to "militia" has been resolved by the SCOTUS, first in:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

and that this Constitutional Right is incorporated as applying to the States in:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

McDonald v. Chicago :: 561 U.S. 742 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

You should know that very well by now as this has been discussed in the past. That knocks SEVEN of your TEN questions out of play.

As for the other three?



Heller also answers all of those questions.

End of story. :coffeepap:



He is asking you to show your basis. I have provided you with that foundation in my response above.

Next time someone asks you this kind of "list," just smack them down with the facts.

Read Heller especially, and it answers those 3 non-militia questions clearly.

heller is NOT the Constitution

it is the current interpretation by the supreme court which substantially changed its opinon when compared to the prior supreme court opinion

that tells us the second amendment - as written - is far from clear

again:

Cornell Law School notes: "Such language [text of second amendment] has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope."

 

[Captain Adverse]

Heller...is the current interpretation by the supreme court which substantially changed its opinon when compared to the prior supreme court opinion

that tells us the second amendment - as written - is far from clear

again:

Wrong. :no:

The principle of stare decisis holds otherwise.

Heller is the current "law of the land" when it comes to interpreting the Constitution on the subject of any Militia requirement, and McDonald has incorporated it as applying to ALL States of these United States.

If you want to know how this works, then ask any Constitutional scholar about Marbury v. Madison.

The ONLY debate revolves around how to interpret "in common use" as it applies to various weapons and if/how they can be restricted.

 

[danielpalos]

heller is NOT the Constitution

it is the current interpretation by the supreme court which substantially changed its opinon when compared to the prior supreme court opinion

that tells us the second amendment - as written - is far from clear

again:

There is no ambiguity, the first clause is clear as to the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.

 

[justabubba]

Wrong. :no:

Heller is the current "law of the land" when it comes to interpreting the Constitution on the subject of any Militia requirement, and McDonald has incorporated it as applying to ALL States of these United States.

If you want to know how this works, then ask any Constitutional scholar about Marbury v. Madison.

The ONLY debate revolves around how to interpret "in common use" as it applies to various weapons and if/how they can be restricted.

if the second amendment was clear, interpretation would NOT be necessary

your post, excerpted here, confirms my position that the second amendment is far from clear:

... debate revolves around how to interpret "in common use" as it applies to various weapons ...

 

[danielpalos]

if the second amendment was clear, interpretation would NOT be necessary

your post, excerpted here, confirms my position that the second amendment is far from clear:

No interpretation is necessary; our Second Article of Amendment is clear; it is not a Constitution unto itself.

 

[Aberration]

if the second amendment was clear, interpretation would NOT be necessary

your post, excerpted here, confirms my position that the second amendment is far from clear:

Except it is clear. The argument being made is political and defies logic. Which is why we have to play stupid word games in court. The problem with “in common use” is everyone has an AR15 and 30 round mags and Dems don’t want that. The law is clear, so how do you get around the law when it’s clear? Make retarded arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rich2018]

What part of our Second Amendment do you not understand? Your irrelevant diversions are simply that.

another crude attempt at deflection.

We've had the general clause and common clause BS...
We've had the three branches of government
We've had you pet phrase "appeal from ignorance"
We'll probably get a copy & paste of the 2nd amendment text now...

Once again, the questions you refuse to answer:

To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

 

[Rich2018]

It doesn't support your claim.

The bit that says the militia because incorporated into the National Guard

Here's one more site (I've bolded the important bit):


"In 1637, the English settlements in North America were a tiny fringe along the Eastern seaboard. As settlement pushed west into the interior, the institution of the militia, which the colonists brought with them from England, went with them.
The militia tradition meant citizens organizing themselves into military units, responsible for their own defense. Organizing the militia into regiments increased its efficiency and responsiveness, which proved critical for the defense of their communities. Its oldest units, like the one pictured above, are the oldest units in the United States military and among the oldest military units in the world.
The militia, called the National Guard since 1916, has served community, state, and nation for nearly 400 years, and citizen-soldiers have fought in every major American conflict from 1637 to present day operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Much has changed since the “first muster,” but more than 370 years later, the men and women of the National Guard are still defending their neighbors – and their nation..."


History ‹ About Us ‹ Army National Guard

 

[danielpalos]

another crude attempt at deflection.

We've had the general clause and common clause BS...
We've had the three branches of government
We've had you pet phrase "appeal from ignorance"
We'll probably get a copy & paste of the 2nd amendment text now...

Once again, the questions you refuse to answer:

To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

This is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Why do you believe a State legislature should be required to accomplish their task as elected representatives?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rich2018]

This is our supreme law of the land:

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.

Why do you believe a State legislature should be required to accomplish their task as elected representatives?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

LOL, you are priceless, did I not predict you'd respond with yet another attempted deflection by copy & pasting the 2nd amendment text ?

We'll probably get a copy & paste of the 2nd amendment text now...

What do you have left ?
Maybe you'll treat us to the text of the "Enumerated Powers" ?




In the mean time, you continue to refuse to answer the questions:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

 

[danielpalos]

another crude attempt at deflection.

We've had the general clause and common clause BS...
We've had the three branches of government
We've had you pet phrase "appeal from ignorance"
We'll probably get a copy & paste of the 2nd amendment text now...

Once again, the questions you refuse to answer:

To remind you of your dodge:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rich2018]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Any more meaningless quotes ?


In the mean time, you continue to refuse to answer the questions:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

 

[danielpalos]

Any more meaningless quotes ?


In the mean time, you continue to refuse to answer the questions:

1. Would not a 24/7/365 mustering of the militia damage the economy like COVID-19 has or worse as people can't conduct business ?
2. Would all militia men be expected to muster with their own guns of the same caliber etc - so re-supply is possible ?
3. What is the differences between guarding oneself and no militia at all - (or do you assume that every militiaman stands over his neighbor) ?
4. Does the Constitution still apply - like the 5th amendment ?
5. What would happen if a jogger just ignored the armed militia - can they shoot him ?
6. Would the militia detain the jogger ? (you know that requires an arrest right ? Or is that another suspension of citizen rights you propose)
7. If they arrest him, what would be the charge, and would it be a felony or a misdemeanor ?

There is no appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law or the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.