The second amendment is not universal or above regulation

[haymarket]

Are you also aware that during the time of the drafting of the Constitution that it was considered a DUTY by some states that the people bear arms?

Really though, regardless of how YOU interpret the second amendment, this is really the only thing that matters.

"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right."

1 - it is not 1787 any longer now is it.

2- Heller changed nearly 200 years of precedents and marked the FIRST TIME that a federal judge ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right totally free of the militia language. The first time in 200 years. And it carried the day by a single vote.

But even with that reality, it changes not one word that I stated about the meaning of he word INFRINGED.

 

[Federalist]

But even with that reality, it changes not one word that I stated about the meaning of he word INFRINGED.

What you stated about the meaning of the word infringed is your opinion, and nothing more.

 

[ChrisL]

1 - it is not 1787 any longer now is it.

2- Heller changed nearly 200 years of precedents and marked the FIRST TIME that a federal judge ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right totally free of the militia language. The first time in 200 years. And it carried the day by a single vote.

But even with that reality, it changes not one word that I stated about the meaning of he word INFRINGED.

Nothing you say changes the fact that the SC DID interpret the amendment to mean that individuals have a right to bear arms for the purposes of defense WITHOUT government infringement, as interpreted by the court to mean restricting a person's ability to have immediate available access to his/her firearm for self defense. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not sure the government is worried about any weapons citizens may have compared to the Preditor Attack Drones that are at their disposal. Currently it's the liberals who are trying to limit the government from allowing the police to have access to these drones.

I mean, we all make mistakes sometimes. You sure you want to have a drone chasing you down?

would the politician who unleashed a drone on fellow american citizens want 100000 guys like me looking to line him up in the scope of my 30-06 rifle? there are lots of us out here that if we can see you through a 16 power scope can hit you with a 180 grain bullet still going about 1600 FPS by the time it gets there even if we have to aim several feet high at that distance

 

[H. Lee White]

2- Heller changed nearly 200 years of precedents and marked the FIRST TIME that a federal judge ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right totally free of the militia language. The first time in 200 years. And it carried the day by a single vote.

One in a while I read one of these posts, just to see how inane they are. I am rarely disappointed.

Glad I caught this one.

Heller changed nearly 200 years of precedents

Please cite the SCotUS decsions overturned by Heller and supply the text to that effect.

and marked the FIRST TIME that a federal judge ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right totally free of the militia language. The first time in 200 years

Your statement is either a lie or made out of ignorance. Let us know which.

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001):

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective
rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold,
consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or
engaged in active military service or training, to privately
possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved
here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not
of the general kind or type excluded by Miller.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf

The district court from which this case was appealed had the same holding, BTW.

 

[Fisher]

All this talk of guns makes me want a howitzer. Anybody see any on Ebay recently?

I actually could offer some pretty good legal arguments for the liberal side, but I choose not to because they are mostly autocrats in their thinking so I like that they are not going to get what they want just because Obama won.

A Federalist paper would hold more sway than an 1820 dictionary as to the intended meaning of "infringed".

 

[notquiteright]

would the politician who unleashed a drone on fellow american citizens want 100000 guys like me looking to line him up in the scope of my 30-06 rifle? there are lots of us out here that if we can see you through a 16 power scope can hit you with a 180 grain bullet still going about 1600 FPS by the time it gets there even if we have to aim several feet high at that distance

Guys who know how to do this have the equipment to do this and thus dial their scopes so their point of aim is the point of impact- no holding 'several feet high'. (over 5 feet high if you have a 100 yard zero) :roll:

Data can vary depending on the BC of the bullet in question, I read your example to be a 500 yard shot. 10X will do just fine on minute of man at that distance. Will also require a bit of grit in the shooter because hell fire and damnation will be forthcoming... it won't be a one way range for long.

Personally I don't see the 2nd A as untouchable. We readily accept restrictions on who gets to have a weapon no matter where they live. The right to self defense is as valid today as ever, but realistically if the E-Vile Gubmint does decide to start striking civilians with missiles the leadership won't be walking around like an arcade game waiting for our never been heroes with hunting rifles to take pot shots at them.

Our heroes will be shooting at the foot soldiers who will have little compunction in flattening an entire block- reference our planting the seeds of democracy in the desert one flattened town at a time.

The ballot box not the ammo can is our best safeguard for democracy- all video fantasy games aside... eace

 

[H. Lee White]

Guys who know how to do this have the equipment to do this and thus dial their scopes so their point of aim is the point of impact- no holding 'several feet high'. (over 5 feet high if you have a 100 yard zero) :roll:

This is true - I know my elevation settings for 200 to 1200yds in 100yd increments.
Not sure why I know 200yds as no one needs a scope to shoot anything larger than squirrels at 200yds.
Elevation is easy - its windage that requires skill.

Data can vary depending on the BC of the bullet in question, I read your example to be a 500 yard shot. 10X will do just fine on minute of man at that distance. Will also require a bit of grit in the shooter because hell fire and damnation will be forthcoming... it won't be a one way range for long.

Meh. Pretty sure I could shoot for as long as I wanted to if I started shooting at 1000yds or so and set myself up properly, as so one will have any idea where I am.

 

[mr4anarchy]

What, then, does “…shall not be infringed.” mean?

What does exigent circumstances mean?

What does incitement and imminent lawless action mean?

What does in plain sight mean?

What does defamation and obscenity mean?

Why are some public trials held in closed courtrooms with sealed records?

Why does the 5th Amendment not always apply to tax records?

Why has SCOTUS over the years defined many reasonable exceptions and circumstances when your 'rights' are not absolute?

 

[notquiteright]

This is true - I know my elevation settings for 200 to 1200yds in 100yd increments.
Not sure why I know 200yds as no one needs a scope to shoot anything larger than squirrels at 200yds.
Elevation is easy - its windage that requires skill.


Meh. Pretty sure I could shoot for as long as I wanted to if I started shooting at 1000yds or so and set myself up properly, as so one will have any idea where I am.

Well for T-Box hostage shots a scope can come in handy, you shoot minute of eyeball for that...

When you go from guys who can hit minute of man at 500 yards to 1000 yards you have dropped the number of people who can do that significantly.

What will be the lumps in the 'shoot the leader' gravy is getting your target to present him/herself in an environment so you can stand-off at a distance and take the LR shot. He/She would have to stand still for a bit because you don't know where the stationary moment will occur and time of flight is impressive. My 308 takes approx 1.4 seconds to go 1000 yards.

I believe the lone gunman righting wrongs scenario isn't very realistic.

 

[Federalist]

What does exigent circumstances mean?

What does incitement and imminent lawless action mean?

What does in plain sight mean?

What does defamation and obscenity mean?

Why are some public trials held in closed courtrooms with sealed records?

Why does the 5th Amendment not always apply to tax records?

Why has SCOTUS over the years defined many reasonable exceptions and circumstances when your 'rights' are not absolute?

You're user name seems to indicate that you are an anarchist. Is this correct?

 

[mr4anarchy]

You're user name seems to indicate that you are an anarchist. Is this correct?

Not at all.

Anarchy is an interesting concept. 12-step groups have no central government, just volunteers who serve the individual groups basic secretarial and organization functions. Many native American tribes functioned without a central government-even at that nation level. Their leaders didn't have authority in the executive sense, they lead in spiritual matters and advised group decisions. And they had no concept of private property. This changed when we showed up and started drawing lines.

I think our system is better than most. A perfect utopia can not exist because men are so imperfect--we're horny and like our privacy. We need the lines so we don't get lost.

 

[Federalist]

Not at all.

Oh, your user name threw me. I thought you were saying you were for (4) anarchy. If you're not an anarchist, forget about my question.

But, if you don't mind my asking, why the misleading user name?

 

[haymarket]

What you stated about the meaning of the word infringed is your opinion, and nothing more.

WRONG. It is the finding of the authoritative Websters dictionary widely used at the time.

 

[TurtleDude]

WRONG. It is the finding of the authoritative Websters dictionary widely used at the time.

opinion noted and rejected based on the documents contemporary to the drafting of the USSC. those documents being statements by the founders that "no man shall be disbarred of the use of arms" etc. Your claim that anything short of a ban is not an infringement is wanting and has no valid support

 

[haymarket]

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001):

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf.

Thank you for that small correction. It is appreciated. So my statement that we went 200 years without a federal judge claiming that the Second Amendment was not connected with the milita was accurate I merely missed the first case it by seven years. But the 200 years still stands. '

The fact is that my main over all arching point - that the ruling of federal courts that the Second Amendment is a personal right disconnected from the militia - is a very very modern development and not at all consistent with the previous 200 years.

Thank you Lee for helping to prove that point. I appreciate you correcting the details.

 

[haymarket]

opinion noted and rejected based on the documents contemporary to the drafting of the USSC. those documents being statements by the founders that "no man shall be disbarred of the use of arms" etc. Your claim that anything short of a ban is not an infringement is wanting and has no valid support

The statement you quote - from some nameless individual devoid of any link or reference - "no man shall be disbarred of the use of arms" is perfect. It goes 100% hand in hand with the Websters authoritative definition in use at the time of that era. And it is what I have been stating all along is the meaning prohbiting INFRINGED - that the Second Amendment cannot forbid you the right to keep and bear arms.

I appreciate that Turtle and would like to use that phrase in future discussions to bolster the Websters quote. However, I fear that if I use it without a link or citation I will be mocked and it will be declared as worthless. Do you have one. thank you.

btw - that unlinked or unreferenced statement by the unnamed individual - do you agree with that? Because I cannot find any court which states that.

 

[hikari]

What, then, does “…shall not be infringed.” mean?

According to the supreme court a total ban seems to be infringement. They haven't decided to strike down laws banning automatics or yelling fire in a theatre so regulation is apparently not infringement on rights.

 

[Ikari]

Now you are placing the pair of pants to one suit with the jacket of a different outfit altogether and then you wonder why there is a problem in them clashing?

More intellectual dishonesty.

No I wonder how you can claim that if one person has one gun, they have full access to their right to keep and bear arms but then do not see any corollary between say a person having one subject they can bitch about, and saying they have full access to their right to free speech. You're changing up your arguments for different rights because you really just want to argue against the 2nd while trying to keep the rest. But what you don't seem to realize is that this is an all or nothing ballgame. Once you open up the government for unrestricted interference with one right, they get it for all rights.

 

[haymarket]

No I wonder how you can claim that if one person has one gun, they have full access to their right to keep and bear arms but then do not see any corollary between say a person having one subject they can bitch about, and saying they have full access to their right to free speech. You're changing up your arguments for different rights because you really just want to argue against the 2nd while trying to keep the rest. But what you don't seem to realize is that this is an all or nothing ballgame. Once you open up the government for unrestricted interference with one right, they get it for all rights.

No - I am not changing my argument for different rights because I have no put forth any argument about anything except the Second Amendment.

Like some others here, you want to argue about what you think are some effects of the language of the Second Amendment and you seem upset that it does not say what you want it to have said so it could be used to do what you want it to do.
That is your right and you can certainly feel that way. It is unfortunate for you and those who argue your position that the Second Amendment says what it says and not what you want it to say.

 

[Ikari]

No - I am not changing my argument for different rights because I have no put forth any argument about anything except the Second Amendment.

Like some others here, you want to argue about what you think are some effects of the language of the Second Amendment and you seem upset that it does not say what you want it to have said so it could be used to do what you want it to do.
That is your right and you can certainly feel that way. It is unfortunate for you and those who argue your position that the Second Amendment says what it says and not what you want it to say.

Nice deflection. You care to actually address the argument, or are you just in "making **** up"s-ville because you made a stupid argument?

 

[mr4anarchy]

Oh, your user name threw me. I thought you were saying you were for (4) anarchy. If you're not an anarchist, forget about my question.

But, if you don't mind my asking, why the misleading user name?

Irony.

 

[H. Lee White]

Thank you for that small correction. It is appreciated. So my statement that we went 200 years without a federal judge claiming that the Second Amendment was not connected with the milita was accurate I merely missed the first case it by seven years. But the 200 years still stands. '

The fact is that my main over all arching point - that the ruling of federal courts that the Second Amendment is a personal right disconnected from the militia - is a very very modern development and not at all consistent with the previous 200 years.

Thank you Lee for helping to prove that point. I appreciate you correcting the details.

Heller changed nearly 200 years of precedents

Please cite the SCotUS decsions overturned by Heller and supply the text to that effect.

 

[H. Lee White]

According to the supreme court a total ban seems to be infringement. They haven't decided to strike down laws banning automatics or yelling fire in a theatre so regulation is apparently not infringement on rights.

The court has also not upheld these "regulations", and so your conclusion is unsupportable.

 

[Saboteur]

would the politician who unleashed a drone on fellow american citizens want 100000 guys like me looking to line him up in the scope of my 30-06 rifle? there are lots of us out here that if we can see you through a 16 power scope can hit you with a 180 grain bullet still going about 1600 FPS by the time it gets there even if we have to aim several feet high at that distance

Well I hope a drone is never deployed on any american for any reason. Whether that american can shoot it down or not.