The constitution - A lesson and debate

[Truth Detector]

You're wrong again. The Second is SPECIFICALLY about the Militia.

You couldn't be more wrong. But apparently, you like wallowing in wrong and that's perfectly okay.

.....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

 

[Truth Detector]

I know I'm going to regret asking this but why do you think it's not about the Militia?

A better question is why would you think it is about the militia?

“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.”

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

 

[Truth Detector]

I have. Your right to carry for self-defense does not emanate from the Second Amendment.

Another very good reason one cannot argue with an idiot.

 

[Into the Night]

Its a shame you weren't born with any portion of a brain. Had it been so, you could have read the exact Supreme Court wording when ruling on the second amendment. Its not too late to keep from making another ass of yourself.

In short you stupid shit, gun bans in general are illegal but specific weapons can be banned at any time.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

What does "well regulated" mean?

organized. That phrase refers to the right of State to defend itself, not the right of the people to defend themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

1. I think Bullshit Blob would feel a lot better after a lobotomy.
2. The AR-15 is clearly, and by design, an offensive weapon.

There is no such thing as an 'offensive weapon'. GFM? If you are monitoring, this is another buzzword for your list.

 

[Into the Night]

it doesn't mean government controlled.

In this case, IT DOES. It is specifically referring to the inherent right of a State to defend itself by organizing militias. That militia is controlled by that State government, with the governor of that State as chief commander.
Obviously, he is trying to equate the right of a people to defend themselves using any weapon they choose to be conditional on the inherent right of a State to defend itself, using militias, arming with any weapon they choose.

It's wrong of course, there is no such conditional.

 

[Into the Night]

If you were a constitutional expert, your opinion might mean something. As it is, in a word, you know shit.

Sorry, Florida man. The Constitution, and ONLY the Constitution, is the authoritative reference of the Constitution. No 'experts' needed.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok your non-answer is denied.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Trying to deny a VOID?????????!?

 

[Into the Night]

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

There is no right given by the 2nd amendment. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

YES IT IS. The right of self defense is inherent. That means ANY WEAPON and ANYWHERE.

For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

Unconstitutional.

The Court’s opinion

No court has authority to change the Constitution.

should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,

You can't prohibit it. The right of self defense is inherent. It is available to EVERYBODY. Yes...even prisoners!

or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,

Gun Free Zones don't work. Mass shootings at these places should make that obvious.

or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Unconstitutional.

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.

NOTHING in the Constitution describes any weapon by type, length, rate of fire, size of magazine, brand of manufacture, type of action, range, how scary looking is, etc. NO GOVERNMENT HAS AUTHORITY TO PICK AND CHOOSE 'allowed' weapons. There are NO limits on weapons.

 

[Into the Night]

Scalia is not a constitutional expert, obviously. he got it wrong......the framers were very clear that the federal government had zero power or authority over the arms of the people.

You need not mention the framers. They're dead. It's a mistake trying to speak for the dead.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution is the Constitution itself. That is all you need to refer to in pointing out that the federal government has power or authority over the arms of the people.

 

[Into the Night]

I know I'm going to regret asking this but why do you think it's not about the Militia?

Let's look at the 2nd Amendment yet again:

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.

It IS about the militia. It is ALSO about the people. Both have the SAME inherent right of self defense.
States defend themselves by forming militias (armies). They are organized. That's what 'well regulated' means.
PEOPLE defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms. That means 'weapons'. ANY KIND OF WEAPON.

NEITHER right shall be infringed by any level of government. The 2nd amendment applies to ALL levels of government.

You can't impose a conditional that does not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

I have. Your right to carry for self-defense does not emanate from the Second Amendment.

Correct. The right is inherent. The 2nd amendment is a specific directive to all layers of government HANDS OFF!

 

[Into the Night]

I never said that it does. I simply said that the 2nd Amendment is not about the militia

It IS about the militia AND it is about the PEOPLE.
It is about both.

 

[Into the Night]

No it is not. But you cling to that delusional bullshit if it helps you to sleep at night.

It IS about both the militia AND is also about the PEOPLE.
BOTH have the SAME inherent right of self defense...the States...and the People.

You ARE correct that he is trying to impose a conditional that does not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

A better question is why would you think it is about the militia?

“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.”

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment

It IS about the militia. It is about the inherent right of a free State to defend itself. It does that by forming militias.
It is ALSO about the people. It is about the inherent right of an individual to defend himself by keeping and bearing arms, namely ANY WEAPON.

 

[Lightbringer]

Another very good reason one cannot argue with an idiot.

I'm 95% troll. You're 100% troll, you've never offered anything of substance so kill yourself.

 

[Lightbringer]

No it is not. But you cling to that delusional bullshit if it helps you to sleep at night.

OK. Say they didn't use the word Militia. That's definitely a winner for you fuckwit.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm 95% troll. You're 100% troll, you've never offered anything of substance so kill yourself.

I always laugh at the argument "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Truth Detector]

OK. Say they didn't use the word Militia. That's definitely a winner for you fuckwit.

The key words, for illiterate uneducated backwoods hicks, is a militia being necessary..... It's not a requirement. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” is the only pertinent issue.