What is a "2A extremist"?

[Cordelier]

My point was rather clear. You just don’t want to see it. Not my problem

Jesus wept.

 

[RF667799]

It’s rather clear that that is his whole bit.

He pretends things are true despite zero evidence, claiming that because the 2nd has a prefatory clause it’s not on the same level.
He claims every word in the constitution has meaning and was chosen for a reason except of course unless that word doesn’t help his argument. Like trying to pretend the founders used The People and the militia are synonymous.
He tried to use Heller to prove his point up until other parts of heller destroyed his argument and then heller only matters in state law.
And I could go on.

What he is doing is he has a desired goal and then is trying to twist meanings and ignore what ever doesn’t help him reach that goal while still pretending that he is just going by what the constitution says.

I just wonder if he thinks he is fooling anyone.

I don't know why Congress would decide on the civilian AR-15 as militia issue (and thus subject to special regulation), when they have probably hundreds of thousands of M16s sitting idle in armorys.

 

[RF667799]

The Court has never ruled on a challenge to Congressional militia power as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, so far as I am aware.

Irrelevant. They have to rule in accordance with the entirety of your scheme, which has that the 2nd Amendment is intended to specially regulate certain firearms. Then Congress has to select "semiautomatic rifle in intermediate caliber with removable magazine" as the only militia weapon, disregarding all the other firearms that are used in the military.

 

[braindrain]

Jesus wept.

I am sorry that calling out your BS hurt your feelings so much.

Maybe next time rather then play dishonest games just admit what you want and that you don’t care what the constitution actually says.

 

[Cordelier]

Irrelevant. They have to rule in accordance with the entirety of your scheme, which has that the 2nd Amendment is intended to specially regulate certain firearms. Then Congress has to select "semiautomatic rifle in intermediate caliber with removable magazine" as the only militia weapon, disregarding all the other firearms that are used in the military.

I didn't suggest it was the "only" class firearm used in the military. I put it forward as the standard class of firearm appropriate for use by the militia.

 

[Cordelier]

I am sorry that calling out your BS hurt your feelings so much.

Maybe next time rather then play dishonest games just admit what you want and that you don’t care what the constitution actually says.

It says exactly what it says... prefatory clause and all. If you choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment as if the prefatory clause didn't exist, that's on you. It's not a constitutionally valid position, however.

 

[RF667799]

I didn't suggest it was the "only" class firearm used in the military. I put it forward as the standard class of firearm appropriate for use by the militia.

It isn't even a class that has been widely issued to the military in over 50 years. Why do you assume it is appropriate for militia use? Why would revolvers, semiautomatic pistols, slide action shotguns, semiautomatic shotguns, and bolt action rifles not also be appropriate for use by militia, since they are used by the regular military?

 

[Rucker61]

The underlying right has meaning. It just isn't a right - as Justice Scalia said in Heller - "...to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

That's a very conjunctive sentence, you know.

Scalia also noted that classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[Rucker61]

Again, Heller was decided against a DC law, not a Federal one. The prefatory clause only pertains to Federal laws. Only the Congress is granted the Constitutional power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. Although it may be possible for Congress to delegate it's militia powers (that's a separate debate), no such delegation was at issue in Heller.

How is DC not federal?

 

[Cordelier]

That's a very conjunctive sentence, you know.

Scalia also noted that classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

As it pertains to State and Local laws. I'd argue that the prefatory clause adds an extra dimension in the case of Federal laws, in that Congressional militia powers come into play.

 

[Cordelier]

How is DC not federal?

They have their own legal code.

 

[Chase Morgan]

Similar to any retard who actually believe that jimmy printing press Madison would have no problem with modern day plebs having access to the internet and virtually unlimited knowledge.

Uh, I'm not aware of any maniacs who mowed down 20 elementary school kids using the internet...

 

[jamesrage]

Here's several examples that immediately came to mind:

FLASHBACK: Obama: I Have Expanded Rights of Gun Owners

Get breaking national and world news, broadcast video coverage, and exclusive interviews. Find the top news online at ABC news.

abcnews.go.com

So he restored something the government had no business taking away in the first place. Returning something that was never yours to take in the first place so you can take away more things is not a compromise. Especially when you are trying to use what you returned to take more things that is not yours to take away.

 

[braindrain]

Uh, I'm not aware of any maniacs who mowed down 20 elementary school kids using the internet...

How you say you don’t understand constitutional rights without saying you don’t understand constitutional rights.

 

[braindrain]

It says exactly what it says... prefatory clause and all. If you choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment as if the prefatory clause didn't exist, that's on you. It's not a constitutionally valid position, however.

Yes the prefatory clause states why the right to keep and bear arms is important. It does not change the fact that right shall not be infringed.

All this nonsense about congress having the ability to regulate firearms that the people may keep and bear because everyone is the militia is just that. Nonsense.

Stop trying to add things that are not there and maybe you won’t be so confused.

 

[Cordelier]

Yes the prefatory clause states why the right to keep and bear arms is important. It does not change the fact that right shall not be infringed.

All this nonsense about congress having the ability to regulate firearms that the people may keep and bear because everyone is the militia is just that. Nonsense.

Stop trying to add things that are not there and maybe you won’t be so confused.

The prefatory clause also states the importance of a well regulated militia. How can the militia be well regulated if Congress is blocked from exercising it's powers to organize, arm, and discipline it?

 

[Rucker61]

The prefatory clause also states the importance of a well regulated militia. How can the militia be well regulated if Congress is blocked from exercising it's powers to organize, arm, and discipline it?

Hint. They aren't.

 

[Cordelier]

Hint. They aren't.

True... because they haven't really acted as of yet. What I'm trying to do is explore the limits of potential Congressional action.

 

[Rucker61]

True... because they haven't really acted as of yet. What I'm trying to do is explore the limits of potential Congressional action.

Here's where we are now:
The militia is "well regulated" in 10 USC 246 under the powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16.


Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


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.

Congress seems to have a free hand in "organizing, arming and disciplining" the militia, but that doesn't mean they have any power over regulating the arms of the people anymore than they have the ability to make them march everywhere they go.

 

[braindrain]

The prefatory clause also states the importance of a well regulated militia. How can the militia be well regulated if Congress is blocked from exercising its powers to organize, arm, and discipline it?

You might have a some sort of a point if you were trying to say that congress has the power to say every member of the militia must have an AR. But them them saying the people can not have an AR is an infringement of the peoples right to keep and bear arms. Which the 2nd specifically forbids. Again the AR would be most specifically the rifle the founders were talking about as that would be what the militia would be armed with.

But more importantly you should probably read up a bit on what well regulated meant at the time the constitution was written.

 

[VanceMack]

The prefatory clause also states the importance of a well regulated militia. How can the militia be well regulated if Congress is blocked from exercising it's powers to organize, arm, and discipline it?

When was the last time the federal government called out 'the militia'...including the unorganized branch of the militia?

 

[Cordelier]

Here's where we are now:
The militia is "well regulated" in 10 USC 246 under the powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16.


Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


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.

Congress seems to have a free hand in "organizing, arming and disciplining" the militia, but that doesn't mean they have any power over regulating the arms of the people anymore than they have the ability to make them march everywhere they go.

Laws can be changed.

 

[Cordelier]

When was the last time the federal government called out 'the militia'...including the unorganized branch of the militia?

They don't have to call them out. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia.... but it also draws a distinction between those powers and the fourth power - the power to "govern" the militia. The power to govern only exists when the militia is called into active duty. The three other powers, therefore, exist at all times.

 

[VanceMack]

They don't have to call them out. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the militia.... but it also draws a distinction between those powers and the fourth power - the power to "govern" the militia. The power to govern only exists when the militia is called into active duty. The three other powers, therefore, exist at all times.

The question was when was the last time they actually called them out. (And to 'govern' if you prefer)

 

[Cordelier]

You might have a some sort of a point if you were trying to say that congress has the power to say every member of the militia must have an AR. But them them saying the people can not have an AR is an infringement of the peoples right to keep and bear arms. Which the 2nd specifically forbids. Again the AR would be most specifically the rifle the founders were talking about as that would be what the militia would be armed with.

But more importantly you should probably read up a bit on what well regulated meant at the time the constitution was written.

The Constitution states perfectly well what well regulated means... it means whatever regulations the Congress deems necessary and proper in order to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.