What weapons does the 2nd protect?

[ReverendHellh0und]

SCOTUS changed that rule in the recent Heller decision.

HAGGER? - ScotusWiki


here is the link. show me.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You've made your opinion clear. Many disagree.

those "many are wrong" most agree with me/Scotus/the framers/and the constitution.

 

[Iriemon]

HAGGER? - ScotusWiki


here is the link. show me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057656656-post68.html

 

[Iriemon]

those "many are wrong" most agree with me/Scotus/the framers/and the constitution.

Whether they are wrong is a matter of opinion. I certainly agree the Supreme Court agreed with the individual right argument, as I stated early in this thread.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057656656-post68.html

You go as deep as I had expexted. Collosal waste of time. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

You go as deep as I had expexted. Collosal waste of time. :roll:

Suit yourself.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

There sure is a militia requirement.

In order for there to be a militia in good working order the right of ALL the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged.

///end discussion

"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."

James Madison wrote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops

What do you think this says?


And who do you think are the militia?

 

[Bodi]

In order for there to be a militia in good working order the right of ALL the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged.

///end discussion

We agree.

What do you think this says?


And who do you think are the militia?

The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."

The caveat is that these people must be ready, willing and able to step up and defend our rights.

This Amendment does not defend people who just want to own guns to go hunting, sport shooting and/or anything else as petty.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

We agree.




The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."

The caveat is that these people must be ready, willing and able to step up and defend our rights.

how do you get there? the amendment as written states that in order to be able to have a group willing to do something, you can not restrict all the people from owning the tools of this group.

this creates a talent pool.

As the constitution recognizes right, the people rights are retained no matter how you parse the wording.

This Amendment does not defend people who just want to own guns to go hunting, sport shooting and/or anything else as petty.

the "shall not be infringed part does", or another argument is that neither does it specifically prohibit.

 

[The silenced majority]

Isn't it sort of redundant to need to grant a "militia" the right to bear arms?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Isn't it sort of redundant to need to grant a "militia" the right to bear arms?

I think he is attempting to say that only if I participate in an active militia does this right apply to me.

But I also asked him who the militia is, he correctly answered it is all of the people 18-45 and women in the national guard.


So I am confused as to who he thinks this right applies to.

 

[Bodi]

how do you get there? the amendment as written states that in order to be able to have a group willing to do something, you can not restrict all the people from owning the tools of this group.

this creates a talent pool.

As the constitution recognizes right, the people rights are retained no matter how you parse the wording.




the "shall not be infringed part does", or another argument is that neither does it specifically prohibit.

I don't agree that the Constitution recognizes that right, I believe that people mis-interpret the Constitution for profit and selfishness, not out of duty to the State or our Rights.

 

[Bodi]

Isn't it sort of redundant to need to grant a "militia" the right to bear arms?

No. It makes it "Specific" with regards to who and why guns are allowed.

No law shall be passed infringing on the right to bear arms? What about felons? See, laws CAN be passed infringing the peoples Constitutional Rights in certain cases, that is why the term "militia" is used, and not just "every citizen"...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't agree that the Constitution recognizes that right, I believe that people mis-interpret the Constitution for profit and selfishness, not out of duty to the State or our Rights.

why not? i do not understand your point.


profit, selfishness, even if true I do not see the restrictions on these people, or a litmus test for application of law.

 

[Bodi]

why not? i do not understand your point.


profit, selfishness, even if true I do not see the restrictions on these people, or a litmus test for application of law.

See my last post.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No. It makes it "Specific" with regards to who and why guns are allowed.

No law shall be passed infringing on the right to bear arms? What about felons? See, laws CAN be passed infringing the peoples Constitutional Rights in certain cases, that is why the term "militia" is used, and not just "every citizen"...

When one is incarcerated for a felony, they loose certain rights. I think that once you serve your time you should be able to petition for your rights to be restored.


And I have nothing in common with a felon, why would you make the comparison?

 

[Bodi]

When one is incarcerated for a felony, they loose certain rights. I think that once you serve your time you should be able to petition for your rights to be restored.


And I have nothing in common with a felon, why would you make the comparison?

C'Mon Rev... it is a point that displays your whole, "shall not be infringed" argument is flawed, for they can and are infringed. Irrefutable.

what about the rest of what I said though?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

C'Mon Rev... it is a point that displays your whole, "shall not be infringed" argument is flawed, for they can and are infringed. Irrefutable.

Unconstitutionally.

what about the rest of what I said though?

Specifically?



(I did 400 on my SV today, my hand is a bit numb, so pointing me in the right direction will minimize useless keystrokes.) :mrgreen:

 

[Bodi]

About making it "specific" to whom guns are allowed, as opposed to any person that just "wants" a gun, it is "specific" to those that will be engaged in the defense of our Natural Rights by being a part of the Militia.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

About making it "specific" to whom guns are allowed, as opposed to any person that just "wants" a gun, it is "specific" to those that will be engaged in the defense of our Natural Rights by being a part of the Militia.

no it is not specific. it is an "if, then" statment.


if all of the people are able to keep and bear arms, then a Militia in good working order can exist.


Let me ask you. Are you also suggesting that hunting should be outlawed as that is not a militia purpose?

 

[Bodi]

no it is not specific. it is an "if, then" statment.


if all of the people are able to keep and bear arms, then a Militia in good working order can exist.


Let me ask you. Are you also suggesting that hunting should be outlawed as that is not a militia purpose?

No, but the only ones that should be allowed to hunt are those that are in the militia.

Since almost nobody is in a militia, and since almost every person arguing in favor of gun control does so from a "crime" standpoint or a "I like to target shoot" standpoint, then these people should not have guns.

Militia.

Militia.

James Madison said it and I outlined this over pages and pages in detail with evidence to the gun freaks of DP a year or so ago and they don't even bat an eye. They want there guns and that is that. No real reasons, just that they love guns. Strange.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No, but the only ones that should be allowed to hunt are those that are in the militia.

Since almost nobody is in a militia, and since almost every person arguing in favor of gun control does so from a "crime" standpoint or a "I like to target shoot" standpoint, then these people should not have guns.

Militia.

Militia.

James Madison said it and I outlined this over pages and pages in detail with evidence to the gun freaks of DP a year or so ago and they don't even bat an eye. They want there guns and that is that. No real reasons, just that they love guns. Strange.

We are all in the militia. men 18-45 and women not in the national guard. you posted the law yourself. Why would you claim they are not?


You have never clarified this, you seem to avoid it.




let's see what the founding fathers thought.


George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)


Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)




need i continue?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So here's a question, Rev. Someone who is over age 45, or is a woman not in the National Guard is not a member of the militia. Do they have a right to bear arms?

Also, I'm curious. What are the legal issues if I refuse to serve in the militia?

 

[Bodi]

We are all in the militia. men 18-45 and women not in the national guard. you posted the law yourself. Why would you claim they are not?


You have never clarified this, you seem to avoid it.




let's see what the founding fathers thought.


George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."


George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)


Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)




need i continue?

Give me a break. The militia is more than just sweeping your hand over the land and declaring in a godlike voice "BEHOLD! For men 18-45 and women not in the national guard of this land are all MILITIA! MUHAHAHAHAhaha".

Militia should be of people that will actually fight if called upon.

Have you read A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America by Saul Cornell ? Here is a description.

Description
Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong.

Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia.

He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders.

Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts.

Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.

Oxford University Press: A Well-Regulated Militia: Saul Cornell

This is almost exactly what I have been saying here for a long time about the Founders too.

 

[Bodi]

So here's a question, Rev. Someone who is over age 45, or is a woman not in the National Guard is not a member of the militia. Do they have a right to bear arms?

Also, I'm curious. What are the legal issues if I refuse to serve in the militia?

Don't worry about the legal issues... just keep target shooting as the few show up to protect our rights.