Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

Thank You for the information!

 

No need to.
The 2A stands tall. No infringements. States have no rights.
But feel free to show how States have rights based on this ruling.

 

A home invader is the "bravest" kind of thief. They are almost always armed themselves. And guns are the most attractive things a thief can find in a household since they are very easily disposed of and often at above retail

Were I planning a home invasion I might actually seek out a household known to have firearms and kill everyone in it at the beginning so as to get the valuable guns

 

that's why registration needs to be ignored and opposed. crooked cops might well sell such lists to mopes. However, many mopes are not as skilled in shooting as homeowners who have guns. If you have an alarm and a dog-as I do-chances are-I will be ready with some really serious firepower if some mope breaks in.

 

more confusion, states never had rights-they have certain powers. The fourteenth amendment has curtailed some of those powers. The 14th allowed the courts to incorporate some of the bill of rights upon the states. that is what happened here.

 

A prefacing clause in a legal document is not usually meant to be entirely introductory. The Constitution was composed by a group of the best legal minds that have ever existed. Are you really saying that they just threw in the first several words of what are among the most important sentences in the entire composition for luls?

 

if those great legal minds wanted the new federal government to have any gun control powers, why didn't they include anything that even remotely suggested that the federal government could limit what arms private citizens could own, use keep or bear in their own sovereign states in a private capacity?

 

Personally I want to thank you....since you aren't a citizen of the US.....for chiming in about OUR rights, not yours. Have a nice day BTW, what are the gun laws in Germany?

 

No confusion based on the 2A. It's extremely explicit.

Second Amendment



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.

 

The States ratified the 2nd Amendment. Comprende?

 

he seems rather confused about the entire constitution and the bill of rights. he doesn't understand incorporation, he doesn't understand that states have powers, not rights, and some of those powers have been limited by the 14th amendment and incorporation with the bill of rights. He doesn't understand that the tenth amendment-if properly interpreted, wipes away all federal gun control law while the second is a more limited negative restriction on the federal government because it involves Keeping and bearing (rather than say use)

 

That says this,
Second Amendment



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.

...
Are you stating infringements are allowed?

 

people jump through all kinds of hoops to justify their infringement stance.
You are a prime example

Second Amendment



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.

 

now you are just trying to make crap up. I oppose any and all federal gun control. You on the other hand supported the federal government

1) banning any and all adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to buy or possess any firearm

2) forcing every citizen to wait before taking possession of a firearm they bought legally and after passing a background check

so tell me-something you appear to be too afraid to do-what infringements do I support at the federal level?

 

Wouldn't it be simpler just to have the alarm and TWO dogs and forego the gun? If I'm a home invader I'm not afraid of your gun, if anything it attracts me. Two German Shepherds barking together sound like a least a dozen and big dogs scare most anyone.

 

You can say you're attracted to a 357 sig or an AR15 or some others, but the fact is that if you're on the receiving end of lead poisoning, you won't be attracted at all. Let's cut the okay? If you don't like the 2nd Amendent, get it repealed.

 

do you have any idea how easy it is to take out a dog/ I want homeowners to take out people breaking into their homes. Anyone who breaks into a home at night is =almost always-presumed to be willing to harm the occupants since homes are expected to be occupied at night. The more home invaders who are shot or captured at gun point by homeowners the better. Dogs btw are extremely expensive and cost money daily. You can buy a good pump shotgun for 300 dollars and it won't cost you vet bills, food bill etc and will last as long or longer than you will

 

Note your claim of fed control.

1. guns are not all arms
2. feds are not the only means of arms control.
3. your support of infringements has been duly note for weeks now

Second Amendment



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.

 

1. true, arms also includes personal weapons such as dirks, swords, spears, hatchets, poleaxes, rapiers, clubs and nunchaku (NY laws against nunchucks were struck down second amendment grounds-Oregon ban on switchblade knives struck down by OSC based on the Oregon second amendment provision)

2) True

3) I support proper state police powers that do not violate the second amendment as incorporated. Laws that prevent the harmful USE of firearms do not violate the right to keep and BEAR arms. people who lose their rights through the due process of laws is a fact as well. Prisoners lose the right of assembly, Saying I support violent prisoners being incarcerated does not mean-at least to intelligent people-that I support infringements on the first amendment

 

I have no idea what 1A has to do with this topic, at least to intelligent people. Seems like a very weak deflection of the topic.

However, the topic of 2A is pretty explicit.
Second Amendment



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.

 

There's two statements in the 2nd amendment:
1. A militia is needed to protect our freedom
2. The right of the PEOPLE (not militia) to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by the government

You consider the Founders to be the greatest legal minds that have ever existed and yet you think they confuse whose rights they declare protected? You don't find that absurd? If they meant only a militia could be armed they would have said so. They didn't... for obvious reasons. They said the people can be armed. Why is this confusing? The amendment isn't a difficult sentence to comprehend.

 

Have you ever seen someone who claims that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right, ever explain where the federal government was properly delegated any power to restrict what arms those acting in their private capacity can own, use etc?

 

They have to hide from the history and the words of the amendment because neither support them. They just bring up nonsense in hopes nobody will call them out on it.

"Why talk about a militia then?"
Why not? What difference does it make?

"Well we can ignore the operative clause because the prefatory clause can be more easily obfuscated."
Sorry, you don't get to ignore the most important part of the amendment because you don't like what it says.

/Every 2nd Amendment conversation on the internet.

 

does banning all adults between the ages of 18-20 infringe on the second amendment

does making someone with a clean record wait until he or she can take possession of a firearm infringe on the second amendment.

 

If I'm a smart enough "mope" (have you been reading old Punisher comics again?) to buy a registration list from corrupt police I'm going to get your schedule and come when you're out

Is your gun on duty 24/7? Will your gun go and tell someone you fell down the well? (or seriously had a fall and can't get up)

One dog maybe, (though I think you underestimate the effectiveness of 100lbs moving at 30mph and having natural weaponry the equal of almost anything in the animal kingdom) but two dogs are something else entirely. Well-trained dogs that live together DO work in teams.

Where in hell do you live anyway that home invaders are this big of a problem?