what should go away is all federal gun control since it violates the tenth amendment as well as much of it violates the second amendment. and the states should be limited to banning malum per se violations, not crap like magazine size. any firearm that a civilian law enforcement agency can use, other private civilians ought to be able to own
Heller mostly was based on history and facts. They only erred in failing to say that we all have the right to have military weapons.
Except for all the places where he isn't. That is incorrect. The second half of the Second Amendment protects the universal right to own a gun. Nonsense. The term "well-regulated" merely meant that the militia in question operated as a single coherent unit (and was therefore an effective fighting force). Correct. It is not. As I noted above, the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question is an effective fighting force. No it didn't. "Keep" means to posses the arms and maintain them in good working order. Nonsense. No it wasn't. No such change. The second half of the Second Amendment has always meant that. Your failure to back up your claims is evidence that your claims are untrue. Your failure to back up your claims is evidence that your claims are untrue. The second half of the Second Amendment was intended to protect the universal arms right. Again, "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit (and therefore fight effectively). The only thing they got wrong was not extending the Second Amendment to military weapons. He already has. That is why he dismissed your claims as untrue. Heller isn't too bad. It just needs to be extended to cover military weapons. He already has. That is why he dismissed your claims as untrue. He already has. That is why he dismissed your claims as untrue. He already understands. He has already done the research. He has no misconceptions about the Second Amendment when passed by the first Senate. That is why he dismissed your claims as untrue. The Fourteenth Amendment says differently. Never. The Bill of Rights must stay in place to protect our freedom. He has already read the history of the subject. That is why he dismissed your claims as untrue.
SCOTUS can re-interpret The Constitution, er, SCOTUS has an obligation to interpret The Constitution correctly and historically.
The infringed part of the 2ND is the last 13 words of the amendment. Why don't you pay attention to the first 12 words of the amendment or the history behind the passage of the amendment?
Militias were not constantly active. The right to keep and bear arms was not changed whether a militia existed at that time or not.
That's nice. Now, try to address the question: Why do you not understand the states do not have the right to violate the constitution?
Wow. you're tripping as much as abortion advocates who can't have federal abortion any longer. Guess some folks like you crave for big government.
Why do you refuse to understand that when -you- make a claim, onus is on -you- to back it? I mean other than the fact you know you cannot back your claims.
Two very relevant points to consider: 1) In the 18th Century, preambles were used to define the scope of a law. Historian David Koning explains: "Preambles had long existed in English lawmaking.... A preamble was supposed to narrow and clarify, not widen, a law.... The language of preambles was necessary to restrain the operative clauses.... No better example exists of this function than the attention that Thomas Jefferson gave to the issue.... It was in response to this understanding of the effect of preambles that Jefferson worked to oppose the insertion of 'Jesus Christ' into the preamble of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Such language, he knew, would narrow the protections of the bill to Christians alone." http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-7.pdf 2) The phrase "bear arms" had a military meaning at the time the Second Amendment was written: "The corpus data provides powerful evidence that contrary to what the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 'bear arms' was used in the Second Amendment in its idiomatic military sense, and in fact that it was most likely understood to mean serve in the militia. Thus, the right to bear arms was most likely understood as being the right to serve in the militia." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3481474 The Founding Fathers must have been very poor communicators if they intended it to make it clear that the Second Amendment protects non-militia usage of arms.
I'm sorry you do not like the fact your complaint was addressed in full and you had no response for it - but that's on you.
I can't use the history of the passage of the 2ND amendment if you refuse to acknowledge the history of the passage of the 2ND amendment.
That's nice. Now, address the question: Why do you refuse to understand that when -you- make a claim, onus is on -you- to back it? I mean other than the fact you know you cannot back your claims.
As I've posted previously in this thread, at the time of the writing of the 2ND amendment in 1791, arms use was pervasive and widely acceptable. So widely used and pervasively acceptable that there were different words to describe the actions of using arms in war and using arms not in war like shooting turkeys for example. Bear arms meant to use arms in war. Keep arms meant to use arms in non-war situations. The original intent of the 2ND was to regulate state militias. The federal gov't had to regulate state militias 'cause there was no standing US army 'cause most US politicians at that time thought that a standing federal army was a threat to democracy. The last 13 words of the 2ND (the only words some people consider in the text of the 2ND) is the intention that the federal 2ND amendment wouldn't infringe on the rights of state constitutions to determine arms usage in their state with the issuance of a 'federal universal rights to arms for Americans' amendment, for example. Unfortunately, with the help of a bumbling SCOTUS, the 2ND has turned into just that...A universal right of arms use for Americans.
You cannot demonstrate this to be true. You cannot demonstrate this to be true. You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
Really, I don't want the hassle of trying to change the ideology of an ideologue. People can be just as ideological as they want to be.
The last 13 words which specifies, for example, arms used in militias and arms not used in militias (meaning all arms usage) was an afterthought to the intent of the 2ND amendment. The original intent of the 2ND was to regulate state militias and the afterthought was to stress that arms rights as spelled out in each individual state constitution took precedence, er, wouldn't be infringed by the federal 2ND amendment.
At that time, everyone could legally own weapons. That right was reaffirmed in the Second Amendment. At what point in history was that right taken away by that very same Bill of Rights?
The bill of rights, Amendments 1-10 only limit the power of the feds. Recall: The founders didn't write any but the 10. 14th amendment incorporation is a thing that was added. It doesn't change the original intent of the founders that the feds be neutered when it came to arms regulations, it simply smears that same effect over the states. Nor does it change the fact that Art 1 Sec 8 has the parts about regulating state militias ffs. You're simply, demonstrably, wrong.
