I have questions for 2A absolutists

[imported_tajmahal]

Since its a states right issue the states can determine how they choose to defend themselves. The whole point of getting you to understand what the definition of "militia" is, is because the 2nd says that a militia is necessary in order for a state to protect itself. If the federal government bans guns then obviously a state can't rely on state controlled militia for protection. Now if the STATE bans guns from all its citizens but not for its militia members then it can still perfect itself.

But you already know this you just refuse to acknowledge it and straw man the argument because you can't handle the truth, which is typical of most gun nutters. Its why you idiots think the 2nd is to overthrow a tyrannical government, a government that was democratically elected, which makes you nutters the tyrants.

Its cute how you had to alter the 1st amendment to try and make a point. Unfortunately for you, all you did was invalidate your own argument as you just changed the meaning of the 1st, good job dumb ass.

It's not a States Rights issue and it has never been a States Rights issue and it will never be a States Rights issue, but it is cute you're trying to pretend it is.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If that's the best you can do, then my point is a valid one!!

If you say so.

 

[ivwshane]

You did offer that a militia is a bunch of people with guns in support of Slow & Taj. That's not true at all. A state militia is a disciplined force under the command of the Governor. Other sorts of "militias" are just potential insurrectionists, plain & simple. That was never their Constitutional purpose. There are 23 actual state militias with about 14,000 members & they're not in the Bundy bunch, I suspect-

The 21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security

Abstract: State militias have helped to defend the United States since the Revolutionary War. Today, 23 states and territories have organized militias, most commonly known as State Defense Forces (SDFs). SDFs provide governors with a cost-effective, vital force multiplier and resource...

www.heritage.org

Ivwshane is simply wrong, as well. The SCOTUS affirmed the right of self defense in both Heller & MacDonald & that's just the way it is. It does not justify the sale of massive firepower to civilians.

I already said as much way early on. Hence the reason I repeatedly said 150 years of precedent was thrown out in 2007. Which is why I said when the Democrats pack the courts and overturn those decisions, I'll be laughing.

I don't need you of all people, distorting my position and what I have said.

See the bolded point at the end of my first post in this thread.

STOP WITH THIS COMPLETELY BULL SHIT NARRATIVE!!!

For fuck's sake all it does is make you gun nutters look crazy.

Do you know why the argument that the founding fathers wanted a mechanism to "fight back an oppressive government" is total and absolute bull shit?

Because the GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION says the exact opposite!

From the constitution:

Article 1 section 8 paragraph 15

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress INSURRECTIONS and repel Invasions;"

Do you know what an insurrection is?

Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

So do yourself a favor along with your fellow gun nutters and stop using that argument.

As an aside: did you notice the use of the word militia? Does it sound like they were referring to ordinary citizens who happened to be armed? No? Not enough for you? How about in paragraph 16:

"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);"

Does it sound like the word "militia" was being used to describe ordinary, armed, citizens? No?

Well then this whole paragraph certainly doesn't mean what you gun nutters thinks it means then does it?

"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."

Its a states right issue. Not a personal issue like that federalist society member, scalia, made it up to be.

Further in this thread I was even more specific.

You don't get it and you will continue to not get it because you keep thinking the 2nd was conveying rights to individuals whereas it is conveying rights to the states not militias as you have falsely claimed I was implying. The supreme court recognized this for 150 years until Heller, in 2007, using questionable legal theory based on an ideology that's been inconsistently applied since.

The state's only defense were its people and it was up to the state's to determine how they wished to defend themselves and they very well can't do that if their militias can't be armed because of a federal law. The constitution made sure that would never happen.

Logically speaking, it makes zero sense for a state government to rely on randomly armed people to defend itself when it very well could be those same people who are attacking it (also known as an insurrection, do you need historical examples). Randomly armed people defending a state does not make them a militia.

 

[ivwshane]

It's not a States Rights issue and it has never been a States Rights issue and it will never be a States Rights issue, but it is cute you're trying to pretend it is.

Compelling/eye roll

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Compelling/eye roll

It's why it says "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. " Because it's all about States rights.....yeah.

 

[ivwshane]

It's why it says "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. " Because it's all about States rights.....yeah.

Do you think repeating the 2nd amendment as written somehow makes your point? Because it doesn't. I've backed up my claims using the constitution itself as well as other posters quotes/links from the founding fathers.

 

[Bird222]

Do you think repeating the 2nd amendment as written somehow makes your point? Because it doesn't. I've backed up my claims using the constitution itself as well as other posters quotes/links from the founding fathers.

At this point I know you're trolling but I'm going to say this anyway. You keep talking about the constitution the 2A is the freaking constitution. An amendment no less i.e. an addition/change to the original constitution. I have yet to see you address why it says 'the right of the people' instead of 'the right of the militia'. Somehow I don't think they forgot they knew the word militia when it was just used a few words prior. I think the founders full well knew what they were saying and they meant the people.

 

[ivwshane]

At this point I know you're trolling but I'm going to say this anyway. You keep talking about the constitution the 2A is the freaking constitution. I have yet to see you address why it says 'the right of the people' instead of 'the right of the militia'. Somehow I don't think they forgot they knew the word militia when it was just used a few words prior. I think the founders full well knew what they were saying and they meant the people.

Its funny how you gun nutters love to quote only part of the 2nd and you always leave out the qualifier in the sentence: BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
The security of the state is what the second is dealing with. One day you idiots will get that through your damn heads.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Its funny how you gun nutters love to quote only part of the 2nd and you always leave out the qualifier in the sentence: BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
The security of the state is what the second is dealing with. One day you idiots will get that through your damn heads.

I think the 2A is necessary to the security of a free state. So....

 

[Bird222]

Its funny how you gun nutters love to quote only part of the 2nd and you always leave out the qualifier in the sentence: BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
The security of the state is what the second is dealing with. One day you idiots will get that through your damn heads.

Still didn't address what I said (surprise, surprise). Sure keeping the country/state free is a good reason, but the right is for the people. One day maybe you'll get it through your head.

 

[ivwshane]

Still didn't address what I said (surprise, surprise). Sure keeping the country/state free is a good reason, but the right is for the people. One day maybe you'll get it through your head.

And you still didn't address my point so no surprise there either.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the 2A is necessary to the security of a free state. So....

And the founding fathers would disagree with you as they clearly stated that a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free and secure state.

 

[Skel]

Its funny how you gun nutters love to quote only part of the 2nd and you always leave out the qualifier in the sentence: BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
The security of the state is what the second is dealing with. One day you idiots will get that through your damn heads.

You would be correct, but if the people didn't have arms how could they defend the state? You'd be supposing that there would suddenly be government supplied arms and training, which kind of defeats the whole point of making sure the people could be called up to defend the state.

I'm also really confused on your logic that it's a state issue as 2A was written into a doc for people.. Maybe I'm wrong as I've never heard of any other rights expressed in that document that are directed towards states and not the people themselves.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And the founding fathers would disagree with you as they clearly stated that a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free and secure state.

Right, they said that IN the 2A. They also said that we need arms for the militia, a personal right.

 

[ivwshane]

You would be correct, but if the people didn't have arms how could they defend the state? You'd be supposing that there would suddenly be government supplied arms and training, which kind of defeats the whole point of making sure the people could be called up to defend the state.

I'm also really confused on your logic that it's a state issue as 2A was written into a doc for people.. Maybe I'm wrong as I've never heard of any other rights expressed in that document that are directed towards states and not the people themselves.

There is a 150 years of supreme court rulings that say the 2nd is a states right issue. This isn't just something I've pulled out of my ass. The whole debate the founding fathers had when constructing this country was where the strength would lie, with the states, the federal government, etc. they chose and combination of the two and the constitution not only guarantees some individual rights but it also guarantees states rights.

As to first question. A state can most definitely supply arms to a volunteer/professional militia/army, in fact that's what it does now for things like the national guard, and the military and we don't seem to have any problem protecting ourselves.

 

[Skel]

There is a 150 years of supreme court rulings that say the 2nd is a states right issue. This isn't just something I've pulled out of my ass. The whole debate the founding fathers had when constructing this country was where the strength would lie, with the states, the federal government, etc. they chose and combination of the two and the constitution not only guarantees some individual rights but it also guarantees states rights.

As to first question. A state can most definitely supply arms to a volunteer/professional militia/army, in fact that's what it does now for things like the national guard, and the military and we don't seem to have any problem protecting ourselves.

That sounds like a lot of cases.. could you link them? The only cases I've heard of is when the states have attempted to place their own controls around 2A, which would make it a debate of state laws do not trump federal laws.. which makes it a federal thing...

 

[ivwshane]

Right, they said that IN the 2A. They also said that we need arms for the militia, a personal right.

Close, except militia in the context of the 2nd and the constitution is a government (the state) controlled force comprised of volunteers not random people who just happen to have guns.

Now a state could certainly say that they require (and yes they could require it) that all able bodied people arm themselves and defend the state and the country when called upon. Of course that would be rather inefficient and probably quite the shit show as any military force worth a damn will have been trained and regulated by a consistent doctrine. Which is why its completely ridiculous to think that a state would rely on random people to protect it, especially because those same armed people could be what the state need protection from.

 

[ivwshane]

That sounds like a lot of cases.. could you link them? The only cases I've heard of is when the states have attempted to place their own controls around 2A, which would make it a debate of state laws do not trump federal laws.. which makes it a federal thing...

No but you can go back in this thread as another poster already linked several (ironically he was trying to disprove my point and he ended strengthening my point).

And since you are late to the thread I will also let you know that I recognize that the supreme court overturned those precedents in 2007.

 

[Skel]

Close, except militia in the context of the 2nd and the constitution is a government (the state) controlled force comprised of volunteers not random people who just happen to have guns.

Now a state could certainly say that they require (and yes they could require it) that all able bodied people arm themselves and defend the state and the country when called upon. Of course that would be rather inefficient and probably quite the shit show as any military force worth a damn will have been trained and regulated by a consistent doctrine. Which is why its completely ridiculous to think that a state would rely on random people to protect it, especially because those same armed people could be what the state need protection from.

That's what happened when we fought off Britain. The people got together and formed our army, or so the legend goes. It also makes sense in that context why they made sure to make it so their people had arms. It's very possible that 2A is outdated, or needs to be reexamined in today's world. Having said that, I don't think it's that murky of why it was put there, unless someone's trying to make a loophole.

No but you can go back in this thread as another poster already linked several (ironically he was trying to disprove my point and he ended strengthening my point).

And since you are late to the thread I will also let you know that I recognize that the supreme court overturned those precedents in 2007.

I'll have to go look when I have more time to waste. If you happen to dig it up please send it my way.. I'm also a bit spun. If you recognize the 2007 that it applies federally to the people, why call it a state thing.. unless you disagree with it..

 

[glenn1]

Close, except militia in the context of the 2nd and the constitution is a government (the state) controlled force comprised of volunteers not random people who just happen to have guns.

Now a state could certainly say that they require (and yes they could require it) that all able bodied people arm themselves and defend the state and the country when called upon. Of course that would be rather inefficient and probably quite the shit show as any military force worth a damn will have been trained and regulated by a consistent doctrine. Which is why its completely ridiculous to think that a state would rely on random people to protect it, especially because those same armed people could be what the state need protection from.

Again, if you could prevail on your "states rights" view and have all the federal gun laws struck down and leave gun control to the states I'd be fine with that. Let Alaskans have fully automatic rifles and let New York ban their citizens from owning even a rubber band gun. Hell, I'd prefer that be the case not only with guns but 99% of ALL federal laws and regulations being struck down in favor of states rights based laws. Somehow I doubt most progressives/Democrats would be OK with that outcome however so you'd be fighting a political battle to make it happen without much support behind you.

 

[ivwshane]

That's what happened when we fought off Britain. The people got together and formed our army, or so the legend goes. It also makes sense in that context why they made sure to make it so their people had arms. It's very possible that 2A is outdated, or needs to be reexamined in today's world. Having said that, I don't think it's that murky of why it was put there, unless someone's trying to make a loophole.



I'll have to go look when I have more time to waste. If you happen to dig it up please send it my way.. I'm also a bit spun. If you recognize the 2007 that it applies federally to the people, why call it a state thing.. unless you disagree with it..

The difference between British citizens overthrowing their government and US citizens overthrowing their government was something called taxation without representation. The founding fathers created a government for, by, and of the people. In order for us to have a tyrannical government we would have had to vote them in, which means those that would be overthrowing the government would be the real tyrants as they would obviously be the minority overriding what the majority wants using force.

But don't you think it's odd that the founding fathers, who understood how this country came to be, would put in the constitution that one of the governments duties is to put down rebellions and insurrections if they also believed that the people have the right to rebel against their government?

I'll dig up that post for you with some of the cases.

 

[ivwshane]

That's what happened when we fought off Britain. The people got together and formed our army, or so the legend goes. It also makes sense in that context why they made sure to make it so their people had arms. It's very possible that 2A is outdated, or needs to be reexamined in today's world. Having said that, I don't think it's that murky of why it was put there, unless someone's trying to make a loophole.



I'll have to go look when I have more time to waste. If you happen to dig it up please send it my way.. I'm also a bit spun. If you recognize the 2007 that it applies federally to the people, why call it a state thing.. unless you disagree with it..

Here you go:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html <--US v Cruikshank, established states can restrict gun rights, but not outlaw them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois <--- Presser v Illinois, established what you state, that states have the rights to outlaw firearms from citizens not part of a militia.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/174.html <---US v Miller, established among other things that any guns that could "reasonably" be used in a militia are protected by the 2A, machine guns included. This was later reinterpreted.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 <--Columbia v Heller, established that individuals have rights to keep and bear arms in federal enclaves, didn't prevent states from restricting gun rights.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf <---McDonald v Chicago, established that the 2A applies to all citizens, at all times, and could not be abridged by the states.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the ruling of the SC, it's there in writing.

I'm sure you know all of the above, because you're a smart primate who reads stuff like the rest of us do, but you asked for citations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 <---Law definition of an unorganized militia
The 2A doesn't differentiate between 'organized' and 'unorganized', given that those definitions didn't exist when the 2A was drafted. It's possible that if it were, there would be a predication of 'only organized militias', but I seriously doubt it. Conceptually the idea of an 'official' militia and 'unofficial' militia would have been familiar to our founders, and they would have included some verbiage to state as such. Before you try to hang on to 'well regulated', bear in mind that an unofficial, 'unorganized' (again, mind the definition) militia can still be well self-regulated. Again, entirely moot since it was pretty well established from the founders via their personal notes that they never intended to restrict gun ownership to ANY specific body of people.

I'm not citing the rest of my statements as they were simply comments on what you said.

Lol thanks for making my points for me.

In United States v. Cruikshank the supreme court held that the federal government cannot take away your right to bear arms. In fact it specifically said there is no such right to bear arms but rather that the 2nd amendment means that Congress gets no say in it and it is up to the states.

Strike one.



As for Presser v. Illinois, lol, another win for me:



The exception being that the militia laws which governs the requirements the federal government set forth for militias as the constitution states in article 1 section 8 paragraph 16 that I've already quoted to you.

That's strike two

For UNITED STATES v. MILLER, the supreme court ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to state whether or not an 8" shotgun had any relationship to a well regulated army.

This doesn't help your argument but it does help the straw man argument you were arguing against when you stated that I said the 2nd was only for militias.

I'll call a ball on that one.

Your last two cases overturned precedent set by previous cases that, for the last 150 years, said the 2nd was a states right and I've already said as much.

So at best you are arguing using the current supreme courts view of the 2nd amendment which I have already acknowledge but disagree with.

At worst, you've made my case stronger.

Thanks!!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's what happened when we fought off Britain. The people got together and formed our army, or so the legend goes. It also makes sense in that context why they made sure to make it so their people had arms. It's very possible that 2A is outdated, or needs to be reexamined in today's world. Having said that, I don't think it's that murky of why it was put there, unless someone's trying to make a loophole.



I'll have to go look when I have more time to waste. If you happen to dig it up please send it my way.. I'm also a bit spun. If you recognize the 2007 that it applies federally to the people, why call it a state thing.. unless you disagree with it..

Yes, he disagrees with it. He personally feels that it's not a personal rights issue, despite the wording of the 2A and the federal decision + precedent. He's hoping that the courts stack in his favor so he can change that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And the founding fathers would disagree with you as they clearly stated that a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free and secure state.

So why didn`t the founding father say -- a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free and secure nation? or United states? Instead they took it down to mean each individual STATE!!! Bingo!! Winner winner chicken dinner!!

 

[glenn1]

So why didn`t the founding father say -- a well regulated militia was necessary to ensure a free and secure nation? or United states? Instead they took it down to mean each individual STATE!!! Bingo!! Winner winner chicken dinner!!

Like I said repeal the federal gun control laws on the books, then you can have whatever bans you want in your state.