A well regulated militia.

Very nice. You found the cut and paste function. LOL

 

They did not. Anywhere. Are you having difficulty following this thread. Where did I say that gun laws CURRENTLY requires gun owners to be in a militia?

 

No need for that. You should feel sorry for yourself for being so pathetic. I'm totally serious.

 

Well I suspect her skills with a gun would eclipse your skills as a constitutional legal scholar.

 

Who cares if you said currently? That is what you said you wanted, and it's not going to happen because that would be unconstitutional and an infringement upon the rights of American citizens.

 

Actually the supreme court has ruled that all kinds of limits can be placed on gun ownership and this is constitutional. I don't think they will over rule Heller anytime soon but I could see a requirement for training. Well regulated, as used in the federalist papers, means well trained and in good working order. The founders wanted us to be well trained so we could be part of a militia if ever needed.

 

Well every supreme court justice that has ever served on the bench (even Scalia) disagrees with you....but what do they know. LOL

 

I am a professional level shooter in three shooting sports. I was on two USA world teams, held a record in speed shooting, and at 57, I still am one of the top three speed shooters in this part of the USA. I coached a young man in another shooting sport-he was the first alternate for the RIO games in his shooting event. I also am a constitutional scholar. I think I am in the best position to judge my comment. Chris has demonstrated to me she knows a lot about firearms. Your posts have not suggested much knowledge about second amendment scholarship.

The second amendment was intended to be a blanket prohibition on federal action involving private citizens and the arms they owned in their own sovereign states.

 

Well, you know liberals. You can't really figure out if they are women or men. I have a feeling this one is a woman.

 

And what exactly on this thread has led you to believe she knows a lot about firearms. I believe you do because you are highly trained....but please....she is not

 

Nope. There is nothing that states anyone has to be a member of a militia in order to practice their second amendment right.

- - - Updated - - -

TD and I have been friends for YEARS. Again, you don't know anything about what you speak.

 

Are you a woman? Hard to tell in the picture. LOL

 

scalia was a faint hearted originalist. I know this for a fact because three of his law clerks are either classmates of mine at Yale or were in the same office as mine. Scalia apparently included those comments about the Heller decision in order to help Kennedy agree with it since Kennedy is not particularly able to be decisive on issues. Scalia also finessed the language and he was undoubtedly right that the second amendment does not strike down all STATE limitations on firearms USE. However, scalia knew if he said that federal gun control is unconstitutional, he would have to hold that the expansion of the commerce clause that "created" a federal gun control power, was improper-and doing so would cause the supreme court to overturn many social programs that much of America has become dependent upon

in other words, properly interpreting the commerce clause to not allow federal control over individuals would strike down crap like the social security laws, medicare, Title VII, Title IX, etc

 

Stop trying to kiss up now, woman!

 

How can you keep getting this so wrong? I said the very same thing in this thread. LOL

 

True, Chris and I discuss firearms all the time. She knows a fair amount about them

 

So you can find no Justice that agrees that there can be NO federal limits on guns. Well then we agree

- - - Updated - - -

What did I say Dc V Heller showed? This is funny

 

Read the writings of our Founding Fathers which have been posted previously - WE the people are the militia.

 

You said that you wanted everyone to have to be in a militia. Well, that would be unconstitutional as I've showed you several times now. When are you going to get it? If you are afraid, then that is fine. Don't own any weapons. Most of us are not afraid, and we will own a gun if we so choose. Good thing you have no say in that!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the framers of the constitution expected every able bodied man (and woman in some cases) to be ready with their arms to fight at a moment's notice.

 

I agreed with the OP that it would be good for people to have to be in a militia but I agree that would be CURRENTLY unconstitutional. Although Madam President will get to appoint a few new justices so anything is possible.

 

So, you do want the rest of us to be unarmed because you are scared. How pathetic. Why don't you just move to Mexico or something? Strict gun laws there. Lol.

 

You really are quite angry. I am neither scared or want you unarmed. But I do want you trained. And I believe a person like yourself that is not is a danger to the community

 

Again, you don't know anything about me or any training I have or don't have. Stick to the topic which is wimpy liberals who are afraid and want to limit other people's constitutional rights because of their fear.

 

I really don't care about justices when we are debating the meaning of the second. I suspect Justice Thomas would agree with me. but too many of them are either slaves of precedent or statists

lets see if you can answer an honest question without evasion

DO YOU REALLY THINK the founders intended the COMMERCE Clause to delegate to the federal government the power to control what arms private citizens own in their own homes?

 

Of course she thinks the government should have complete and total control over the American people! Typical liberal panty wetter.