2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

No, they are not. There is Only one Intent and Purpose to our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

- - - Updated - - -

there is Only one supreme law of the land. i don't need to appeal to ignorance of it.

- - - Updated - - -

the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. It really is that simple, except to gun lovers and the right.

 

Yes, I can. Wellness of Regulation has to be prescribed by our federal Congress. It cannot be just a bunch of gun lovers getting together.

 

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller says otherwise.

 

The topic of the militia is specifically covered in Article 1, Section 8.

 

natural rights to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they can't. The People are the Militia. What part of that, do you not understand?

 

What is your major malfunction anyway, danilepalos? Do you honestly think God gave you some understanding that was not shared with the rest of America? Do you realize that what you keep saying has been disproven by many different posters here? And, to add insult to injury, you asked me if I had ever been in a courtroom. I responded. When was the last time YOU argued a case?

 

Does the ATF makes definitions that define what are "arms" in the 2A? If not what is the relevance of what they call them?

Are you saying anyone who pays a $200 tax can buy hand grenades, shoulder fired SAMs, LAWs, rocket propelled grenades?

So I cannot buy a new M-16. Basically proving my point.

 

Distinction without difference to my point.

If machine guns are "arms" you have an Infringeable right to bear, then you would be able to buy a new M-16 at Walmart. Along hand grenades, shoulder fired SAMs, LAWs, rocket propelled grenades, and the like.

Scalia new that scenario would result in the 2A, so in a shocking display of activism for a self proclaimed strict constructionist, he totally re-wrote the 2A.

 

the ruling were made by mistake.

 

The only difference you are identifying is the amount of destructive power.

If that is the key criteria for distinction of "arms" under the 2A, then everything except muskets and flintlocks are subject to regulation, since most any modern weapon has more destructive capability.

 

ROTFLMFAO

 

Not to worry Iremon. If Hillary is elected, she will close and destroy all and any media including the internet that speaks out against her. Then she will by executive order nationalize the registration of all guns, then ultimately confiscate them. Hillary has told us so. Let it be so. Eh? The progressive Socialist dream for America.

 

Except none of that will actually happen....but WW will CLAIM "she's gonna do it...uh...any day now"....

until she leaves office after 2 terms on January 20th, 2025.


Just like he claimed the same thing about President Obama in 2008. And was wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Is a thermonuclear device an "arm"...as in the singular of "arms"....or not? If not...why not?

 

If I had a dollar for every wrong prediction conservatives made here about Obama, I'd be cruising in my boat off Tahiti.

Remember the many claims that Obama would cause gas prices to jump to $5 or $6 a gallon?

 

You have, several times, been shown how and why this does not mean what you want it to mean.

 

The 2nd amendment does not confer to any part of the government the power to do anything.
So... no.

- - - Updated - - -

The board has an ignore function, designed to starve the trolls.

 

Oh, boy. Another circular gun argument.

 

You're right.
It says the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Not the militia.. not he people in the militia,... but the people.

No such description shall be found there, only powers granted to Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you wonder this?
What confuses you?
Why do you think there's a contradiction?

- - - Updated - - -

Unquestionably.
Imagine, having to pay a $3600 (adjusted) tax before you could have an abortion.

 

And in it is a description of the militia

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;


That is the ONLY description of the militia in the Constitution.

And it's CLEARLY a military description.

Nowhere does it refer to a ragtag group of wannabe soldiers hanging out at the local barber shop .

THAT is a "well regulated militia" referred to in the 2nd.

 

The Constitution does not give a definition of a taxpayer. Article 1 Section 8 does not purport to describe what the militia consists of. That is done in the United States Code. All Article 1 does is to tell about a power of government when the militia is called into service.

I think you would be well advised to go back and reread this thread. Your objections have been asked, answered, and dealt with many many times.

 

These aren't descriptions of the militia.
These are powers granted to congress with regard to the militia.

 

So in one sentence you have two clauses and they bear no relationship t each other?

Why would they be in the same sentence if that were true?

That's utterly ridiculous

- - - Updated - - -

It describes a militia being organized, armed, disciplined,trained, and governed. In other words "well regulated"

That's absolutely a description...in fact the ONLY description in that entire document.

 

You know this questions has been fully answered numerous times, in this very thread - why do you keep asking it?

- - - Updated - - -

No. It grants power to Congress. Nothing more.

 

The plain language says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unorganized or organized, the right remains.

 

The militia is unconnected to the people's right to keep and bear arms. You've been told this and shown this multiple times. There is no grammatical gymnastics you can do to twist it to mean you have to be in a militia in order to keep and bear arms.