IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

I am familiar with this article, thanks for the reminder. The racist roots of gun controlled continued with the bigotry of laws such as the Sullivan Law in NYC-designed to harass Italian longshoremen being shaken down by the Irish Mafia (that infected the NYC police department)

 

So regulations about where black powder could be stored were racist? You sound like one of those hysterical people on the left complaining about systemic racism....

 

that's not gun control that's common sense gun control is saying you can't have this type of gun where these type of people can't have this type of gun that's 100% racism.

No you're stupid straw man sounds like one of those hysterical people on the left complaining about systemic racism that's you.

I'm sorry you don't know what gun control is.

 

Military are restricted from attending political events in uniform
Throwing smoke bombs at the White house
Attempting to overthrow the government...

Your severe lack of understanding of either the Constitution or the Law is noted.

 

That the first clause is every bit as important as the second.

 

Bearing arms, of itself, only means arms that are available. There was the right to bear what arms existed at that time, not a blank check for all and anything to come. Of course, that is the reasonable and logical conclusion, so has no effect upon radicals who apparently seek the eventual destruction of the second amendment by taking the untenable positions currently held. When this group will not even admit safety training be necessary, they totally discredit themselves.

 

and the first clause in no way diminishes the negative restriction on a federal government that was never given any gun control power in the first place. Lefties want to pretend that the first clause somehow delegates additional powers to the federal government which is blatantly false

 

that's nonsensical. Just as freedom of speech protects internet or telephonic speech and just as religions founded in the 1800s are protected so are modern arms. Claiming otherwise is specious as is the claim that "training is necessary" to invoke the negative restriction on the federal government not to infringe on the keeping, owning, possessing and bearing of arms

 

red herring sighted. We should compare our educations in law. what law school did you earn a JD from? what ABA accredited law schools have you presented peer reviewed lectures on the second amendment?

 

Wrong.

Even Heller acknowledges the power of government at every level to regulate firearms. The ONLY thing Helkler got right.

A "well regulated" militia is the only "where" where arms may not be regulated BECAUSE the militia is doing the regulation. Thus "well regulated" rather than "Joe and his hunting buddies"

There is no wording in the Constitution that states or implies any individual right to own a firearm for any reason.

 

why post obvious falsehoods. Yale doesn't have a law review. when I was at Yale it was called the Yale Law Journal. It is still called that. When you post such an obvious mistake, it proves you are just making crap up.

 

There is no working in the constitution that gives the federal government any power to regulate privately owned firearms. The federal government only has the powers given to it-you pretend that it has any power that wasn't prohibited it even though the second does that
Yes, Heller was prior to McDonald and it didn't DELINEATE between (at the time) constitutional STATE POWERS vs federal powers and yes, it referenced the still in place but clearly unconstitutional 1934 NFA.

 

And when I was at Yale we reopened it and renamed it and...onlya fool would believe your rantings.

Your ignorance of the law is obvious.
As is your ignorance of the constitution.

The only question...

Sho' ain't real.

 

200 years of legal decisions says you're full of it...

Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). In the first case to deal with the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_...ution.-,Ruling,carry weapons for self-defense. 1846

Got history?
Stare decisis?

 

you're just mad that others on this board are obviously far more educated on constitutional theory. You cannot disprove any of my claims but I quickly destroyed your false nonsense about attending those schools because you made a mistake that no one who ever attended Yale-be it undergraduate, or especially the law school would make. It would be as obvious as someone claiming to have been a Lt Commander in the US Army

 

OMG is that funny. I HAVE STATED FOR YEARS that the second amendment did not have any implication for state laws until Incorporation and McDonald. You are failing badly

 

That you think the Government, federal or state, has no authority to regulate firearms exposes your boundless ignorance of both the topic and history.

 

that you constantly misrepresent my position means you are either unable to refute what I have actually said, or you are unable to comprehend it

 

ah when defeated, we see the race card thrown. why would anyone with even a shred of honesty feel a need to invoke the KKK on this subject

 

When reason and facts fail all they have left is throwing around "Nazi" turd balls hoping one will stick.

 

"written" =/= "intended" if we consider the many other writings by many of the founders. Slavery and the Electoral College are the two best examples. The founders hadn't 'intended' to enshrine either of these, but there were states that threatened to refuse The Union and stay British colonies otherwise, and that would've killed any chance of a successful revolution. Thus the Constitution was written with a means to alter it later... It was essentially the first American example of democratic compromise- 'None of us are dumber than all of us.'

 

I see many who try to accuse others of being what they are. Sort of like insecure high school closet cases who used to scream "fairy" at other guys.

 

I think of the old saying "Liberalism is great until you run out of other people's money".

 

except that smart people have read my posts for years where I clearly discuss federal versus state powers

 

Your position is your problem
If calling a spade a spade makes you uncomfortable may I suggest you check your spade.