The last gun store in San Francisco to close (purchasing, school)

[Kar54]

I do not personally own a gun, but have nothing against those who do for personal defense purposes.

Don't know for certain, but I doubt even the most ardent anti-gun advocate would be willing to put a sign in their front yard reading:

"Gun Free Home, No Firearms on Premises"

[northsider]

Originally Posted by legal_eagle

The Constitution pretty much trumps any other statutory law or court ruling if there is a direct conflict between them, and the "shall not be infringed" language in the Second Amendment is so clear and explicit that the reference to a "well regulated Militia" is basically irrelevant. Or as the U.S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, "in America 'the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.'"

Som the citizens of the US can pick those bits of their constitution that they agree with and discard other parts. Is is generally believed that the words, "well regulated Militia" are irrelevant?

If that be the case why not just tear up the constitution.. if any part can be considered to be irrelevant to someone, that seems like cherry picking, making the whole document irrelevant depending on who decides what is and what isn't relevant.

Thank you for your reply.

[northsider]

Originally Posted by arleigh

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms" is so easily ignored by you.

Definitely, very easily ignored as I do not live in the US, nor am I answerable to any of its laws. But I am interested in the ways of the world.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by northsider

Som the citizens of the US can pick those bits of their constitution that they agree with and discard other parts. Is is generally believed that the words, "well regulated Militia" are irrelevant?

If that be the case why not just tear up the constitution.. if any part can be considered to be irrelevant to someone, that seems like cherry picking, making the whole document irrelevant depending on who decides what is and what isn't relevant.

Thank you for your reply.

Well regulated meant "in good working order" in the 18th century. A clock that was on time was "well regulated".

[FC76-81]

Speaking of gun's and San Fran, looks like a bad guy got kneecapped. What a gem, he "guided" the intruder to the door and sent him on his way. Cops catch up with the guy a block away. Yeah, I'll drink an Irish coffee to that!

73-year-old San Francisco resident shoots burglary suspect in knee | KRON4.com

[northsider]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Well regulated meant "in good working order" in the 18th century. A clock that was on time was "well regulated".

So then where is the well regulated, in good order militia? Who commands it??

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by northsider

So then where is the well regulated, in good order militia? Who commands it??

It is not commanded. "Well regulated" means the general populace is armed and ready if needed.

Historically, the militia is self comanded but working closely with military.

[04kL4nD]

Gun nuts like to ignore that part of the sentence. They forget that in English, we typically construct our sentences with a subject first, followed by a verb and direct object. It's amusing that people try to dismiss the first clause, but hold the second half of the sentence sacred, but here we are.

In modern contexts, the idea of a well-regulated militia seems silly, since our military could just send in armored tanks and even nuclear weapons to quell a militia, but don't tell that to gun nuts- they ignore the clause anyway.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Gun nuts like to ignore that part of the sentence. They forget that in English, we typically construct our sentences with a subject first, followed by a verb and direct object. It's amusing that people try to dismiss the first clause, but hold the second half of the sentence sacred, but here we are.

In modern contexts, the idea of a well-regulated militia seems silly, since our military could just send in armored tanks and even nuclear weapons to quell a militia, but don't tell that to gun nuts- they ignore the clause anyway.

Was the bill of rights and constitution written in modern context?

To save everyone some time I'll answer for you; no it was not. The entire constitution is based upon the meaning at the time of issuance, i would hope even you would be a ain't changing the meaning of words to fit a political agenda.


Your fantasy of the military launching nuclear and tank attacks against citizens is just that, a fantasy. The military in general is a very conservative organization that gives loyalty to the constitution, not the president.

[Bisaro TMF]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Was the bill of rights and constitution written in modern context?

To save everyone some time I'll answer for you; no it was not. The entire constitution is based upon the meaning at the time of issuance, i would hope even you would be a ain't changing the meaning of words to fit a political agenda.


Your fantasy of the military launching nuclear and tank attacks against citizens is just that, a fantasy. The military in general is a very conservative organization that gives loyalty to the constitution, not the president.

Yes because the Military has never killed disorderly citizens.