Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Demonstrate which of these restrictions were implemented on the federal level, and which were implemented on the state level.

Did any law exist stating that anyone who was too young, or too old, to serve in the militia, could not legally possess firearms?

Demonstrate precisely how.

 

It is something worth becoming familiar with.

Only under extraordinarily rare circumstances. However it is the exception rather than the rule.

Which only applies to actions taken against another that could directly lead to another being harmed. However there is no standard that would even suggest other forms of speech can be regulated through the commerce clause. There is no standard that would suggest the commerce clause empowers government to stop someone from wearing a shirt with an offensive message emblazoned on it.

 

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

Scalia knew that if you take the portion about a "well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" out of the 2A (as he essentially did in a blatant display of judicial activism) an honest rendition of the 2A would spell its own destruction.

Because Scalia knew that an honest reading of the 2A would mean that everyone, including criminals, the insane, terrorists, and whoever else, has an "infringeable" right to automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder filed anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile, and high level explosives.

Scalia knew that "arms" in today's word have become weapons of mass destruction, and that if, after removing the restriction of a well regulated militia, he applied the rest honestly, he'd have to provide "infringeable" access to the most dangerous weapons to the most dangerous people.

So the hypocrite (because the pretended to be a "strict constructionist" when it suited his conservative political agenda) engaged in the biggest display of judicial activism in decades.

The words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- meaningless. Gone. The word "arms"? Completely changed to now mean weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

And what does that mean?

Whatever the hell the Supreme Court wants to decide it means.

 

What do you think it means?

 

What difference does it make as to an "infringeable" constitutional right?

Not that I'm aware of.

See my prior post.

 

Well, it's really a silly circular definition, because if you base the type of weapons that is protected under the 2A based on whether it is "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" then you are basing the 2A right on whatever the law provides.

For example, in Heller, DC banned handguns (if I'm not mistaken on the facts). That being so, how could anyone in DC have a hand gun and be a "law-abiding citizens"? By definition handguns could not have been "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" when it was illegal to possess them.

But none of this irrationality bothered Scalia in the least. It was more important to him to push his political agenda than maintain an honest position.

 

Originally the united states constitution applied exclusively to the federal government, and restricted its authority on what could and could not be done. State matters were dictated by state-level constitutions. If the only restrictions that existed at the time were on the state level, then there is no reason to believe the federal government was ever entrusted with the authority to regulate and restrict firearms.

Then the militia is not a valid point of argument if anyone could legally own a firearm, regardless of age, or whether or not they were serving at the time.

Your prior post is nothing but hyperbole and nonsense without a basis in actual fact. What it is not, however, is actual evidence of just how Anton Scalia engaged in judicial activism in the Heller and McDonald rulings. Your argument is not compelling, nor is it supported by your mere assertion. It does not meet the burden of proof.

 

No, what do you think that the Second Amendment means? How should it be interpreted with regards to gun laws?

 

The district of columbia aside, handguns were commonly and legally owned for lawful purposes by the rest of the united states.

The basis of your argument appears to be that if a local government can prohibit the legal possession of a legal product within its territory, then that is the only fact that must be considered, even if no such prohibition exists outside of their jurisdictional boundary.

 

The issue isn't whether the 2A gives the Fed govt power to regulate guns, but whether it prevents it from doing so.

Everyone was expected to be a part of the militia, because it was necessary to a free state.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I wholeheartedly disagree. I have amply and logically showed how Scalia completely twisted the plain language of the 2A to come up with a new meaning the served his political viewpoint while removing the self-destructive nature of the 2A in an age where "arms" have become weapons of mass destruction.

Rather than actually attempting to actually contest my arguments and position, you've simply conclusorily dismissed it. That doesn't meet any burden of proof.

 

Could be. But it wasn't the case in DC.

But that really doesn't rebut my point about the circularity of Scalia's newly constructed definition of the 2A.

That isn't the basis of my argument at all.

 

IMO there are only two rational readings of it. When you interpret language, you assume people put words in for a reason. Therefore, one reading is they had the language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in their for a reason, and the only logical reason is that they were creating the right for the people so there would be a well regulated militia. In which case the right is dependent on there being a well regulated militia that the people are part of, and which regulates the arms the people in the militia bear.

Or you could decide that the well regulated militia language was irrelevant superfluousness, and then the right to bear arms should is uninfringeable, and anyone should be able to have anything that constitutes arms, without infringement.

But then you'd have to say that the Constitution protects anyone having RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, grenades, automatic weapons, etc. A person having arms in 1879 wasn't that big of deal. It's more problematic when arms are capable of mass destruction.

Scalia recognized that, and realized if he use a strict constructionist, literalist view of the constitution he always claimed to support, he'd set the 2A up for its own destruction. The public would not support a Constitutional provision that allows any nut job to buy shoulder fired missiles that can bring down jet airlines or other modern arms that are capable of mass destruction. Notwithstanding the NRA, the 2A would be repealed.

So Scalia decided it was OK to be a judicial activist when it is for his political cause and simply changed the meaning of the 2A.

 

Incorrect. According the the Militia Act of 1792: "The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the spring and Fall."

Were any free men over 45 prohibited from owning firearms? Senators? Stagecoach drivers? Women?

 

Blacks were. Don't know about the others. There were certainly places that banned guns. It wasn't as much of a concern when you were talking about single shot muskets and pistols.

 

Even with the militia clause included, the right isn't dependent upon being in a militia. The subject of the sentence is right, the predicate is shall not be infringed. The need for a militia is why the right of the people was enumerated. Otherwise, there would have been restrictions on gun ownership, none of which happened until the 1930. We know that the Federalists tried to restrict the 1st Amendment; given two rebellions and (according to the collectivists) the power to do so, why didn't they ever restrict gun ownership?

Are you familiar with US v Cruikshank?

 

Again, it wasn't a big problem when you are talking about single shot muskets.

And there were restrictions on gun ownership or use, though more on a local level.

 

Ok? Speech isn't commerce.

 

What do single shot firearms have to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Multi-shot firearms in existence at the time of ratification:
Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718

Belton even sold a few of his flintlocks to the US Army after presenting it to Congress.

{quote]

And there were restrictions on gun ownership or use, though more on a local level.[/QUOTE]

Which has nothing to do with restrictions on the federal government from the Bill of Rights.

 

The level of threat presented to society.

I don't think those were viewed as posing a big threat to society.

You asked why they didn't ever restrict gun ownership.

 

According to Randolph Roth's "American Homicide", the homicide rate during the Colonial times was significantly higher than current times. Perhaps they didn't restrict gun ownership because the federal government wasn't empowered to do so.

 

you are avoiding the obvious in order to pretend that the founders thought the federal government should limit firearms

Every heard of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? are you claiming the founders believed that even murderers or traitors should have those rights unabridged? same silly argument you make.

again-here is the question that no gun banner has ever been able to answer

WHAT was the natural right the founders intended to guarantee with the second amendment

 

there are several arguments you get from people that think the federal government PROPERLY has such powers

1) those who don't care about the constitution (most of the group fits here)

2) the mutated ontological argument (Stevens) Since they cannot conceive of a federal government that without such a power, therefore the federal government must have that power

3) and my favorite, the hypocrites who say that the 9th amendment clearly ordains a right to abortion or homosexual sex but the second is only about militias

 

No, I am addressing how Scalia completely changed the 2A to suit his political views. Why do you keep avoiding the obvious in order to pretend that he didn't?

 

What changed after Heller with regards to the rights of individuals to keep and bear firearms?

 

The words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," effectively deleted, the word "arms" changed to mean weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."