You enjoy the state of ignorance you're in I suppose, otherwise you would've googled the case by now and even a cursory wiki search would tell you what you need to know. Wallow in the ignorance that benights you then.
They're not insults. You freely admit you have no idea what I'm referring to IE you freely admit you are in a state of ignorance. To say you are benighted by it is to say that same thing, just as it would be mete to say that a difficult decision to be made might beset you. As stated: You have the case name. You could google it. Hell, you could google "Is yelling fire in a crowded theatre good law case" and get the right answer. Almost any actual effort on your part to resolve this problem you confess (to wit not understanding basic references to cases and terms) would bring you the knowledge required. You refuse to engage with it, and 3 times now have made 1 sentence responses attacking me personally rather than engaging with the idea. Ergo, you must enjoy the state of ignorance you are admittedly in. Pointing any of that out is not being insulting.
I am fairly sure that the administration would agree they are insults. My point was as follows. I was not attempting to quote any specific law.
This is "common sense" in so far as the right to free speech does not include speech that places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater; similarly, it does not include that causes harm to others like libel and slander. As such, the 1st amendment does not protect a person who does these things. This isn't "common sense", this is a tangible, definable limit to the right to free speech, based on the premise that the exercise of your rights does not include the ability to wrongfully harm others. This carries over to the right to keep and bear arms in that you do not have the right to commit murder with a gun, or randomly discharge one in the air while in a city. I am curious - how do you think this tenet apples to the sort of "arms" a person had a right to keep and bear?
A little history lesson for ya: When pertaining to arms, the words keep and bear meant two very different things in 1789 when the 2ND amendment was finally passed by the first congress. Keep arms meant to use arms in a non-warlike fashion. Bear arms meant to use arms for war. The 2ND amendment regulated how state militia members were to use arms whether that arms use was for war or to shoot a turkey, for example. BTW, haven't you always wondered why the words to keep and bear are both used in the wording of the 2ND amendment??I just told you. Originally, the second amendment was a regulation of arms for state militias. Granted, SCOTUS changed the meaning of the 2ND amendment to a 'universal gun rights amendment for all Americans' in the middle 20th century (about 170 years after the 2ND was first passed) with their own re-interpretation of the 2ND amendment.
Sorry... No. We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7 At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (199 , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 199). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Not once. Keep and bear = own and use. It would be silly to protect the right to one w/o also protecting the right to the other. Unsupportable nonsense - the text does no such thing. And so, my argument stands: No one has a right to serve in the militia, and no one has a right to "keep and bear" a firearm owned by someone else, so the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" -must- include the ownership of firearms by individuals not serving in the militia, for purposes not related to same. The protection of this right secures the 'well regulated militia " by ensuring the people will always have access to the weapons necessary for same. Thus, the individual right as espoused by Heller, etc.
Dude, in 1789 when the 2ND was passed, arms were widely used in the US for a variety of reasons. Which is why there is precise wording for different usages of arms. You may want to look up these definitions as mentioned by the passers of the 2ND in 1789.
That you won't do the work you should do yourself having anything to do with finding out the truth would decimate your claims about keeping and bearing arms??
The Heller ruling was in 2008. The second amendment was in 1789. BTW in 1858, SCOTUS ruled slaves were property of slave owners. About 10 years later, starting in 1867, SCOTUS was forced to view slaves as humans with amendments 14-16. My argument isn't that SCOTUS can interpret The Constitution differently. My argument is that the 2ND amendment, originally, was a regulation of state militias.
Normally they pull those on their own pretty immediately. Me pointing out you admit you lack understanding IE are ignorant of specific facts and law, is not an insult. Its a fact that you freely admit to, and I'm TRYING to motivate you to educate yourself by employing the barest modicum of effort on your part. By referencing a case with a loose quoting of the one thing you lay people seem to retain from high school civics (fire in a crowded theatre) you did indeed reference something specific: the Schenk case, and a lay people adopted line of dicta from that case (fire in a crowded theatre) that wasn't binding when it was written and later was specifically mentioned in another 1A case to clear up the BENIGHTED misconception you lay people had developed. You sure as **** can yell fire in a crowded theatre in multiple instances: Parody being the first and most obvious that comes to mind. If I waved my arms around sarcastically and loudly in that mocking childish you're an idiot tone that children use said "tHeReS A fIrE" would anyone believe me? Or would a reasonable person understand that I was making a joke? You parrot parts of a case you've never read that aren't binding when they were written and aren't binding now. That have in fact been specifically referenced in current case law as being basically idiotic extensions of a throwaway flippant remark that was not part of the holding itself by lay persons who don't know any better and refuse to educate themselves. You use that basic misconception to misinform your entire opinion on constitutional law. Then you claim I'm being insulting when I try to point out the error you've made and get you to learn something despite the momentary pain of learning you made a mistake and were so taken with it you talked **** first rather than listening. Its aggravating.
2a is 1791 actually. Your constitutional scholarship seems to be missing some fine detail there. I wonder if you might be missing other details? Perhaps a review of your knowledge is necessary? You're saying when you change the text of the constitution by amendment, the law changes? Wowie zowie cab!!! Next you'll tell me that when I alter a document I change its meaning!!!! We're just livin in the future ain't we?! Boy howdy! Words to that effect. Your argument is grossly wrong, the bill of rights prevents the federal government from taking action it does not grant federal powers. Control over state militias is found in Art I. Sec 8. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i#article-section-8 ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ... Emphasis mine. Those are the relevant parts, along with a budget and taxation of course, that allow the federal regulation of state militias. THERE is the control you think stems from the 2a which far from granting powers to the feds basically neuters them in an entire area IE regulation of personal arms. Since you mentioned amendment 14: Incorporation doctrine from the 14th amendment takes the bill of rights and applies it to the states. Which means the same neutering that the feds did to themselves in the ratification of the bill of rights was extended to the states and ratified by the states. There. See? THAT makes actual legal sense.
Just comment on my posts without personal comments. I do not want or need your motivation. I was expressing my opinion of a very limited issue. It in no way reflected my extent of knowledge of the subject.
These are not personal comments. They relate directly to the opinion expressed and your admitted lacking basis for it. Your responses certainly reflected your knowledge on the subject, self admitted. Your quote of dicta part of a case that has been overturned decades hence as an example of restrictions permissible reflects on your knowledge, obvious fact.
In my experience as an air force officer and as an engineer in charge of other people, I wrote and reviewed numerous documents. There is a balance. You can put so much detail into the document as to be so burdensome as to be worthless or you can put so little detail in the document as to be worthless. My comment on the Second Amendment was praising those writers. They put enough in the document to put their point across. However, it is my belief that they did not have to cover each and every possibility. They assumed an intelligent reader. You put numerous words in your posts. I cannot see that any of them addressed the comments I was making.
