ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,225
- 14,914
- 136
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.
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.
Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.You are simply wrong on every count.
You seem to be talking to yourself in imaginary arguments at this point.
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.
Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.
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.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.
Excellent counter-argument. I'm inclined to agree, you're simply wrong on every count.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
That's a definition you made up from whole cloth. There is not, and never has been, such a requirement for a militia.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.
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.
The 2A suggests that citizens supply their own. You doing ok? Sounds like you're having a tantrum in this thread.
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.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html <--US v Cruikshank, established states can restrict gun rights, but not outlaw them.To be clear, this is your interpretation. Based on the present SC-established norms, that would conflict with the 2A.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 <---Law definition of an unorganized militiaTechnically 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.
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.
There you go again with personal attacks. This happens a lot with you when your arguments suck, doesn't it?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 the current SC view is the law until stated otherwise.So at best you are arguing using the current supreme courts view of the 2nd amendment which I have already acknowledge but disagree with.