Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What “civilian” needs a coat when it is currently summer? Ban all coats of course.
Yeah because coats were designed to kill people? I swear, sometimes it becomes harder and harder to fight for my right to own guns when people supposedly on my side make stupid comments such as these.
Again... for those who lack reading comprehension skills... I've explained the truth of what the militia clause means, and SCOTUS agrees. From the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
I have been explaining that, repeatedly, here on city-data but a whole hell of a lot of people STILL don't understand it. For whatever reason, they just CANNOT comprehend what they read. Shocking lack of literacy skills. /smh
That's because we're dealing with willfully ignorant people who's minds are in a vault.
Quote:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64s https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Yes, they made the 2nd amendment very clear. The federal government would not pass any legislation on firearms, so as not to interfere with state governments to regulate their militia.
As always, the 2nd amendment says nothing of the kind.
It's a lot closer to "Since a militia is necessary, the people's right to own and carry guns cannot be taken away or restricted."
Period.
Even if it were somehow proven that a militia is NOT necessary, the 2nd would still mean that no govt in the U.S. can take away or restrict the right.
Pure semantics ... the only thing missing is full auto. Add a bump stock and there is not much difference in fire power. Add a 50 or 100 round drum magazine and you have more firepower than most 'military grade assault rifles'.
A bump stock can achieve up to 600 rounds a minute or 10 per second. About the only limiting factor is your pocket book. At about 60 cents per NATO round x 100 rounds at that fire rate you can burn 60 bucks in 10 seconds.
Short of a 'thrill' on a firing range under controlled conditions, what civilian actually needs that kind of fire power.
1) it's not "semantics" when approximately HALF of all the guns in America are semiautomatics and operate in much the same way as an AR-15.
2) 600 rounds per minute is a joke. ....Tell me, do you have a magazine that will hold 600; rounds?
How about a barrel that won't melt down at that rate of fire?
3) Bump stocks are more a novelty than anything else. A toy for people who have a lot of money and ammo to burn. Besides which, you can basically do the same thing with a rubber band.
They also throw your accuracy out the window.
The founding fathers didn't make clear their intent with the wording of 2A, and that has had horrible consequences.
.
They made their intent perfectly clear.
Quote:
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788
Quote:
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Quote:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
1) it's not "semantics" when approximately HALF of all the guns in America are semiautomatics and operate in much the same way as an AR-15.
2) 600 rounds per minute is a joke. ....Tell me, do you have a magazine that will hold 600; rounds?
How about a barrel that won't melt down at that rate of fire?
3) Bump stocks are more a novelty than anything else. A toy for people who have a lot of money and ammo to burn. Besides which, you can basically do the same thing with a rubber band.
They also throw your accuracy out the window.
And again.....
You're not the arbiter of what anyone "needs".
Yes. I too have had a decision to make as to whether to laugh uproariously or ballistically (pun intended) vomit at some of the wild claims these ban happy cretins come up with. "600 rounds per minute" is a good one but they have gone as far as such cyclical rates being possible in mere seconds from a semi automatic firearm.
I remember seeing one claim about an entire 30 round mag being emptied in 2 seconds. I'd like to see such rates of continuous fire demonstrated. With an AR 15. Not a GE Minigun mounted on an LAV or aircraft.
Think it will happen? Will these lunatic ranters ever go out to a range with firearms they yowl so deafening about and SHOW us these incredible capabilities they so profusely assign to certain models of firearms? Methinks not. Just a hunch.
But that wont stop them from raving on. Star Wars energy blaster rifle? Nope. AR 15. The consummate Imperial Stormtrooper standard issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
