Horrible, Horrible Day’: Multiple Fatalities At Molson Coors Facility In Milwaukee, Mayor Says

Thank you for proving that there is no actual civilian need.

 

I've already explained as has the SCOTUS.

 

They are the unorganized militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

Do note the bolded portion, which is codified into the law of the united states.

 

Yes, I know and supposedly we can now 3D print them. Irrelevant to the issue.

 

Just as there is no actual, legitimate need on the part of yourself, to have access to the internet for day-to-day communication with others?

 

As every good Conservative knows Supreme Court decisions are not definitive and can be changed. They aren’t the Pope and don’t speak for god.

 

is that some pathetic attempt at an analogy?

 

Unfortunately the Constitution specifies a well regulated ( think organized) militia

 

Since we both agree there is no well regulated militia the second part is irrelevant unless your point is one needs to be formed to protect the security of a free state and thus allow individual gun ownership.

 

Simply because a ruling by the united state supreme court can, in theory, be changed at some later point down the line, does not mean the rulings do not carry the weight of law, or can otherwise be ignored during the time being.

If such were indeed a valid argument, there would be no point in even having a united state supreme court, since its rulings would ultimately be meaningless opinions.

 

yes it worked brilliantly during Katrina.

 

Which, at the time of ratification, specifically meant in good working order. Regulation then, did not mean what regulation does now.

 

They are meaningful until changed. Look at the efforts to damage / modify Roe v Wade which is the darling of Conservatives.

 

So tell me which militia you belong to that is in good working order!

 

Pound sand, stari dicisis.

"What did it mean to be well regulated?One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

"Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor well regulated implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in Heller, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent."
https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

 

I gave you two examples.

 

Yea and was the only defense the citizens had once the local government collapsed.

 

Meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion. The Heller ruling holds the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with some duty to serve in a militia, and absolutely everything to do with the legal use of firearms for legal and legitimate purposes. That is the current state of affairs in the united states, and has been reiterated not only in McDonald but also in Caetano. It is not going away anytime soon for the foreseeable future, so the precedent, for all intents and purposes, is here to stay for decades.

Accept it, deal with it, and move on. Cease whining about a dead and discredited topic.

 

Personal details relating to the individual behind the account being addressed are not relevant to the discussion, and as such will not be presented to further derail the discussion from where it is presently.

Do note the united state supreme court held in the Miller ruling nearly a century ago, that the second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with service in the militia.

 

o
You don't know the difference. You can't cover such outlawlessness with the name 'militia.' Those who do it will eventually be given one chance to show the government they can dance of thin air.

 

The government is not going to grab your guns. That nonsense is just stupid. But gun owners will obey the law.

 

Yes we can and posse comitamus.

 

Not according to Biden and Beto.

 

The only times that might have happened was when they used to have organized lynch mobs. They would put notices in the newspapers so that the mob (he unorganized militia and the posse comitatus to congregate at designated places and become "well regulated) would be sure to show up to lynch the designated victim.

 

Irrelevant to the issue of what? Whether or not they can be banned if they are not needed? I disagree.

Since it's not within the government's capability to determine what I need and don't need. (the local knowledge problem) the argument can not be over whether or not they are needed. The argument is over whether or not I can be banned from having one.

How does your need to own standard play out over time? Are you only allowed to own things you need to own? Must you prove a need to own something only if it can be used to harm someone else? Is there an acceptable number of people that can be harmed with this thing, or is it just a completely arbitrary standard you're applying to guns only?