I have questions for 2A absolutists

[ivwshane]

So it’s a states rights issue that’s regulated and restricted at a federal level with laws like Firearms Control Act? That makes zero sense.

We already had this conversation, try to keep up.

 

[glenn1]

We already had this conversation, try to keep up.

You seem to be talking to yourself in imaginary arguments at this point.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are simply wrong on every count.

Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.

 

[ivwshane]

You seem to be talking to yourself in imaginary arguments at this point.

It must suck being a senile old man.

If it's a "states rights" issue like you said, then let's have SCOTUS overturn all the federal gun control laws on those grounds. Certainly seems odd the wordsmiths of the 2A would have used the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" though if what they meant was "the right of the states to keep and arm militias." We certainly don't interpret "the people" to mean the state, since states aren't corporal things and can't "bear arms". And it also makes into nonsense other phrases where "the people" is used, for example, the clause in the 1A "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" with your 2A interpretation would mean the states themselves (as "the people" you refer to in 2A and keeping consistent use of language) would be meeting somehow.

I'm all for it, let's remove all federal gun control laws and allow the state's to ban guns. The federal government can still put in place things like background checks.

As for your question regarding "people", what part are you having trouble with? Do you not understand what a militia is and how it differs from a military? As was mentioned, the national guard is essentially the current day militia. They are not professional soldiers, they have day jobs other than being a soldier, they meet regularly to train.

Ask yourself this, if you own a gun does that mean you are in a militia? Of curse it doesn't.

 

[ivwshane]

Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.

Considering you can't even get the basics right like the definition of a militia, your opinion doesn't really mean shit.

Gun nutters are gonna gun nut.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Consisting you can't even get the basics right like the definition of a militia, your opinion doesn't really mean shit.

Gun nutters are gonna gun nut.

Oh boy, another zinger from the person who cannot form a concise argument, nor defend his position, thus must resort to name-calling. Can't wait to hear your next one.

Care to argue your stance from the position of my last discussion point, or are you just going to blither about how you're right and everyone else is wrong?

 

[glenn1]

Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.

If he thought through his own argument he'd realize how contradictory they were. So 2A is a "states rights" issue ensuring the state would have the right to keep and bear arms via the militia, yet

Article I, section 8, clause 15-16: (The Congress shall have Power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

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.

Article I, section 10, clause 3 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ...


So, does 2A give states/militias the right to keep and bear arms, or does Article 1 give Congress via the "militia clauses" direct control over how those militias are maintained and armed despite him just saying the 2A empowers the states?

OR...................................

You can just read the plain language of the amendment and conclude correctly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the people, meaning individuals.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If he thought through his own argument he'd realize how contradictory they were. So 2A is a "states rights" issue ensuring the state would have the right to keep and bear arms via the militia, yet

Article I, section 8, clause 15-16: (The Congress shall have Power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

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.

Article I, section 10, clause 3 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ...


So, does 2A give states/militias the right to keep and bear arms, or does Article 1 give Congress via the "militia clauses" direct control over how those militias are maintained and armed despite him just saying the 2A empowers the states?

OR...................................

You can just read the plain language of the amendment and conclude correctly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the people, meaning individuals.

Apparently only @ivwshane can divine the original intent of the writers of the constitution and the 2A, so we'll just have to trust that he knows best what the word 'is' is. We certainly can't just read it and understand it, or even talk about it in an adult manner.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh boy, another zinger from the person who cannot form a concise argument, nor defend his position, thus must resort to name-calling. Can't wait to hear your next one.

Care to argue your stance from the position of my last discussion point, or are you just going to blither about how you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Argue against what, your hollow rebuttals? No thanks. My previous post pretty much was a summarization of your last post, that is it had zero substance backed by nothing. If you want a productive conversation then you can start by looking in the mirror.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Argue against what, your hollow rebuttals? No thanks. My precious post prey much was a summarization of your last post, that is it had zero substance back by nothing. If you want a productive conversation then you can start by looking in the mirror.

I posited an argument and you stated it was simply wrong, while offering nothing substantive. That's not arguing, that's taking your ball and going home because either you think you already won, or you don't think you can win.

Losing is okay, it makes us better in the long run.

 

[ivwshane]

If he thought through his own argument he'd realize how contradictory they were. So 2A is a "states rights" issue ensuring the state would have the right to keep and bear arms via the militia, yet

Article I, section 8, clause 15-16: (The Congress shall have Power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

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.

Article I, section 10, clause 3 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ...


So, does 2A give states/militias the right to keep and bear arms, or does Article 1 give Congress via the "militia clauses" direct control over how those militias are maintained and armed despite him just saying the 2A empowers the states?

OR...................................

You can just read the plain language of the amendment and conclude correctly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the people, meaning individuals.

You really aren't very good at this. The issue you and the other gun Nutter can't seem to get through your thick skulls is that a militia isn't a full time army and its up to the states to train and maintain them. Nothing you have posted has contradicted anything I've said and has only strengthened my argument.

Good job gramps!

 

[ivwshane]

I posited an argument and you stated it was simply wrong, while offering nothing substantive. That's not arguing, that's taking your ball and going home because either you think you already won, or you don't think you can win.

Losing is okay, it makes us better in the long run.

You didn't post shit. You think you did but you didn't.

As an exercise, go back to that post and back up your claims with credible citations. I'll wait.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

its up to the states to train and maintain them

That's a definition you made up from whole cloth. There is not, and never has been, such a requirement for a militia.

 

[ivwshane]

That's a definition you made up from whole cloth. There is not, and never has been, such a requirement for a militia.

Its in the fucking constitution you ignorant dolt!!

Holy fuck! Have you gun nutters ever read anything besides the second amendment?

Article 1 section 8 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;

This is some basic shit.

I expect I'll be receiving an apology from you shortly.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Can't have a militia if you can't be armed.

 

[ivwshane]

Can't have a militia if you can't be armed.

No shit dumb ass. Does that mean soldiers have to provide their own arms or is that something the government can supply them?

What a fucking stupid comment by you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No shit dumb ass. Does that mean soldiers have to provide their own arms or is that something the government can supply them?

What a fucking stupid comment by you.

The 2A suggests that citizens supply their own. You doing ok? Sounds like you're having a tantrum in this thread.

 

[ivwshane]

The 2A suggests that citizens supply their own. You doing ok? Sounds like you're having a tantrum in this thread.

Lol no it doesn't. I'm sure in your alternative reality it does but it most certainly doesn't in actual reality.

Am I ok? I'm about as good as anyone would be when dealing with idiots who can barely read let alone understand what it is they are reading.

And you? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You didn't post shit. You think you did but you didn't.

As an exercise, go back to that post and back up your claims with credible citations. I'll wait.

To be clear, this is your interpretation. Based on the present SC-established norms, that would conflict with the 2A.

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.

Technically true for the state's militia, but a militia need not be affiliated with a state, and the state CANNOT dictate how that militia behaves, beyond the laws of that state. That's generally referred to as an unorganized militia, and the name notwithstanding, is perfectly acceptable as an example of a militia, if you really insist on believing that the 2a only applies to militias. There's zero reason why a militia cannot consist of a single person, or a household.

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.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Lol no it doesn't. I'm sure in your alternative reality it does but it most certainly doesn't in actual reality.

Am I ok? I'm about as good as anyone would be when dealing with idiots who can barely read let alone understand what it is they are reading.

And you? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

That's exactly what it says. Very plainly worded. There is no mystery there and pretty well all of America's history backs this up.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Its in the fucking constitution you ignorant dolt!!

Holy fuck! Have you gun nutters ever read anything besides the second amendment?

Article 1 section 8 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;

This is some basic shit.

I expect I'll be receiving an apology from you shortly.

There you go again with personal attacks. This happens a lot with you when your arguments suck, doesn't it?

We went over this previously, but I'll do so again. The articles of the constitution and the 2A were written at separate times, for one. For two, the 2A covers two different bodies, the militia, and the people, and establishes that they both have the right to bear arms. There's plenty of instances where the drafters established multiple concepts within a single article or amendment, so there's no sense in trying to argue from that angle.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

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

Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.

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!!

 

[ivwshane]

That's exactly what it says. Very plainly worded. There is no mystery there and pretty well all of America's history backs this up.

Like I said, in your alternative reality that may be true but in the real world, you are wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

There you go again with personal attacks. This happens a lot with you when your arguments suck, doesn't it?

We went over this previously, but I'll do so again. The articles of the constitution and the 2A were written at separate times, for one. For two, the 2A covers two different bodies, the militia, and the people, and establishes that they both have the right to bear arms. There's plenty of instances where the drafters established multiple concepts within a single article or amendment, so there's no sense in trying to argue from that angle.

And you'd be wrong as your own links back me up and not you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

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

And the current SC view is the law until stated otherwise.

Presser v Illinois was the first true statement of your point, and it was from 1886, a full century 95 years after the 2A was established. Regardless of that ruling, I'm not familiar with any states actually restricting lawful gun ownership, and in 2009 it re-affirmed (read, corrected) the 1886 decision. You may feel all you want that it was a wrong decision, but it was the decision and it is the current interpretation of the 2A. Again, if you wish this to be otherwise, either bring suit that will rise to the SC in such a way that they'll overturn it yet again, or get another amendment passed.