The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

[The Work Outing]

See? It's an entirely worthless position.

In other words?
You don't like it that I don't much care what you think and that I am technically right in my assertions.

'worthless​

adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

worth·less | \ ˈwərth-ləs \

Definition of worthless​

1a: lacking worth : VALUELESSworthless currency
b: USELESSworthless to continue searching'

Definition of WORTHLESS

lacking worth : valueless; useless; contemptible, despicable… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Also, using a relative term as an absolute term is childish and/or shows ignorance/low education.

I try not to waste too much time on people like that.

We are done here.

Bye now.

 

[rahl]

I could care less what you - or anyone else - thinks what an Amendment 'intended' to do.

ALL I am interested here is THE LAW AS WRITTEN.

And the amendment is written in crystal clear english. The right to bear arms has nothing what so ever to do with service in any militia. None, at all.

 

[The Work Outing]

Oh so wrong!

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Wrong.

It is the SCOTUS that is wrong here.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

And based their decision NOT on the Constitution and the law.
But on prior decisions and opinions...which they do NOT have the authority to do in matter covered by the Constitution.

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

2'nd Amendment '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.' So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'? The Militia Act of 1903 'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the...

debatepolitics.com

Bye now.

 

[The Work Outing]

lol no.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Wrong.

The Supreme Court is wrong there.

The law is clear. And the SCOTUS is NOT following their mandate or their oath(s) by making that decision. The SCOTUS followed people 'opinions' and past cases.
That is NOT what they are supposed to do.
Their job is STRICTLY to follow the Constitution. Not to interpret it or guess or assume what it's writers wanted or what ANYONE else thinks about it.
They took an oath(s) to ONLY follow the Constitution.
They are not honoring that oath here.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

2'nd Amendment '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.' So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'? The Militia Act of 1903 'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the...

debatepolitics.com

Bye now.

 

[TurtleDude]

In other words?
You don't like it that I don't much care what you think and that I am technically right in my assertions.

'worthless​

adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

worth·less | \ ˈwərth-ləs \

Definition of worthless​

1a: lacking worth : VALUELESSworthless currency
b: USELESSworthless to continue searching'

Definition of WORTHLESS

lacking worth : valueless; useless; contemptible, despicable… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Also, using a relative term as an absolute term is childish and/or shows ignorance/low education.

I try not to waste too much time on people like that.

We are done here.

Bye now.

you have said "bye" at least four times. are you going to keep your promises or stick around and watch the bullshit you post get further eviscerated by those who are learned in this area?

 

[TurtleDude]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court is wrong there.

The law is clear. And the SCOTUS is NOT following their mandate or their oath(s) by making that decision.

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

2'nd Amendment '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.' So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'? The Militia Act of 1903 'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the...

debatepolitics.com

Man!!!

A lot of you people seem to have questionable reading and logic skills on this matter.

Bye now.

what section of the constitution gives the US federal government the power to limit private arms to those in active duty militias?

 

[Rucker61]

In other words?



Also, using a relative term as an absolute term is childish and/or shows ignorance/low education.

I try not to waste too much time on people like that.

We are done here.

Bye now.

You're not debating at all. You're insisting you're right, and the only support you have for that is that you're right. Nothing from the Founders, the states, SCOTUS, Congress, etc. There's just you.

You aren't here to debate at all.

 

[Rucker61]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court is wrong there.

The law is clear. And the SCOTUS is NOT following their mandate or their oath(s) by making that decision. The SCOTUS followed people 'opinions' and past cases.
That is NOT what they are supposed to do.
Their job is STRICTLY to follow the Constitution. Not to interpret it or guess or assume what it's writers wanted or what ANYONE else thinks about it.
They took an oath(s) to ONLY follow the Constitution.
They are not honoring that oath here.

Everyone here disagrees to one degree or another with your claim. See any reason to stay under those circumstances?

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

2'nd Amendment '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.' So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'? The Militia Act of 1903 'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the...

debatepolitics.com

Man!!!

A lot of you people seem to have questionable reading and logic skills on this matter.

Bye now.

See? You're citing yourself to support your position. Lame.

 

[rahl]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court is wrong there.

nobody cares, at all, that you think they are wrong. Your opinion is completely meaningless, in addition to demonstrably incorrect as you were just shown.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're not debating at all. You're insisting you're right, and the only support you have for that is that you're right. Nothing from the Founders, the states, SCOTUS, Congress, etc. There's just you.

You aren't here to debate at all.

Why waste three years going to a top law school and then spend 35 more years studying constitutional theory when you can pretend to be an authority on the net and tell everyone with high powered legal educations or judgeships they are wrong?

 

[Rucker61]

1) I don't know or much care why the Founders did what they did.

2) The only people that should have a firearm in America are those who are or were in the military/Reserves AND who were discharged other than for Bad Conduct or Dishonorable.

Which is interesting, given:

The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246.

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.

There's nothing in here about veteran status. According to Congress using their Constitutional powers, veterans aren't called out as being in the militia. Under the OP's logic, that means that they aren't protected by the Second.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Wrong.

It is the SCOTUS that is wrong here.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | FindLaw

Case opinion for US Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

And based their decision NOT on the Constitution and the law.
But on prior decisions and opinions...which they do NOT have the authority to do in matter covered by the Constitution.

The Second Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

2'nd Amendment '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.' So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'? The Militia Act of 1903 'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the...

debatepolitics.com

Bye now.

Wrong..... They are not wrong you are!

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia.

District of Columbia v. Heller is the law of the land.

Bye Bye!

 

[ttwtt78640]

LOL A lot of good those old guns are going to do when a drone fires a hellfire missile into you home. They are worthless for national security but they do make you a choice target for criminals wishing to steal guns.

Yep, resistance is futile since the government is able to kill folks who own legal guns using WMDs on their homes.

 

[Rich2018]

what section of the constitution gives the US federal government the power to limit private arms to those in active duty militias?

Isn't it established that the 2A only refers to hand held weapons and not crew served like cannons ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Isn't it established that the 2A only refers to hand held weapons and not crew served like cannons ?

the second amendment is not relevant to my question

 

[Rich2018]

the second amendment is not relevant to my question

So what is "relevant" ?

 

[TurtleDude]

So what is "relevant" ?

That would be the Tenth amendment

 

[Bullseye]

2'nd Amendment
'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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'

The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...

archive.org

So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.

you're many decades too late with this argument.

 

[smallvoice]

2'nd Amendment
'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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'

The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...

archive.org

So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.

Try to focus on your screwed up country.

 

[smallvoice]

As I have already typed...

...I do not even BEGIN to CARE what you or anyone else think the Founders 'meant'.
Or how the SCOTUS decides to interpret.

ALL I care about - in this regard - is what is the written LAWS of America AS WRITTEN.

Sorry, old chap, you don't get to "care" about OUR laws.

 

[Rich2018]

That would be the Tenth amendment

As I've already schooled you, the government has the right to restrict arms on two basis:

1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense.

Thirdly, as I've repeatedly told you, there can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2A.

 

[TurtleDude]

As I've already schooled you, the government has the right to restrict arms on two basis:

1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense.

Thirdly, as I've repeatedly told you, there can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2A.

the interstate commerce nonsense didn't exist until 1934

the general welfare and common defense is not a grant of a power of gun control

 

[smallvoice]

As I've already schooled you, the government has the right to restrict arms on two basis:

1. The right to regulate inter-state commerce
2. The duty to establish general welfare and common defense.

Thirdly, as I've repeatedly told you, there can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2A.

You certainly have a high opinion of your opinion. The rest of us, not so much.

 

[holbritter]

By the way.

I do not begin to care how the SCOTUS 'interpreted' the Constitution.

The SCOTUS is not allowed to do ANYTHING but base their verdicts on the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
They took an oath(s) to that effect.
So I do not BEGIN to care what SCOTUS decisions based on their inferences or beliefs are or were.


Nor do I much care what people think what the Founding Fathers meant when they drafted the 2'nd Amendment.

It is TOTALLY irrelevant to me what the Founding Fathers may have 'meant' or wrote or said about ANYTHING.
ALL that matters to me - in terms of the Constitution - is the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

Well gun bunnies?
Start foaming at the mouth.

Who cares what you think?

 

[holbritter]

THAT is the best you can do?

A typical TurtleDude reply (it seems).
Full of nothing but fool's logic, anger/bile and NO links to back it up.


School is in:

The SCOTUS does NOT base it's decisions on the Constitution and/or the written law (usually).

They base them on their personal opinions and/or precedent setting cases.
DUH.

If the SCOTUS did as they swore they would do?
And followed the Constitution ONLY when making their decisions?
They would agree with me...they would have no choice.

School is out.

Bye now.

He who joined less than a month ago........Busted!