The second amendment...

[jaF0]

The argument there is the word 'people' being used instead of 'persons' or 'individuals'. It was long interpreted that 'people' meant the population as a whole, the militia being part of the people in effect. Part of the body of the population as opposed to the Government.

The Gunnies interpreted 'people' to mean each person. As I recall, it wasn't until Bush II that the White House adopted that definition. Money well spent by Wayne LaPoopiePant's NRA propaganda machine.

 

[coachdb18]

They are not wrong. And to a major extent, neither are you.



This is the common misinterpretation that has been applied to the Second Amendment throughout its existence by BOTH gun rights advocates AND opponents.

The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment is to provide for the existence of an armed militia.

The MANNER IN AFFECTING the purpose is to PROTECT A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT from infringement.

Where you and others consistently go wrong is assuming that where the Second Amendment's purpose is arguably no longer compelling in a modern day environment, the government can simply suspend the pre-existing right as a result.

Heller and McDonald were only a few hundred years late in repudiating that fallacy.

And I distinguished that North Carolina case in the other thread where you raised it.

What makes me more comfortable about the impact of SCOTUS on 2nd Amendment rights, is that we're in line for getting at least two more Scalia-like picks for justices, and perhaps four more, which will almost assuredly set the record going forward staunchly in the 'personal right' category, and set back the attempts by largely liberal and coastal anti-gunners back at least as far as pro-slavery forces at the end of the Civil War. Pretty sure the ambiguity we've felt from a court that has for too many years skirted decisive gun-rights issues will be coming right out and saying so, and will finally have political cover to be able to do so.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The argument there is the word 'people' being used instead of 'persons' or 'individuals'. It was long interpreted that 'people' meant the population as a whole, the militia being part of the people in effect. Part of the body of the population as opposed to the Government.

The Gunnies interpreted 'people' to mean each person. As I recall, it wasn't until Bush II that the White House adopted that definition. Money well spent by Wayne LaPoopiePant's NRA propaganda machine.

The collective understanding of 'people' with reference to a population rather than 'persons' or 'individuals' has not one substantive application to the penumbra of the Constitutional right to own a firearm for the individual application of self-defense, hunting or recreation.

In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3] Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Griswold notwithstanding, there was no misconception at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment what other individual and legitimate use of firearms entailed, nor until recently within the 20th century has there been an attempt to intentionally misapply the Second Amendment to the illegitimate denial of those lawful individual uses.

Aforementioned references to 19th century Constitutional restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were a far cry from attempts to deny ownership of firearms whatsoever on the basis that it was a RIGHT guaranteed to STATE MILITIAS by the Second Amendment solely and specifically.

That is NOT what the amendment says and was never intended.

I repeat: it was intended to affect a purpose. It was never intended to define the entire scope (penumbra) of even a "collective" RIGHT.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Leftists are doing their very best to destroy the First and Second Amendments.

Which one will they go after next?

I think the Third Amendment is safe, but Liberals would probably try to water down numbers Four through Ten if they could.

 

[coachdb18]

I think the Third Amendment is safe, but Liberals would probably try to water down numbers Four through Ten if they could.

The best government is ALWAYS the least possible government that satisfies our NEEDS, NOT our WANTS. Liberals/Progressives, on the other hand, tend to feel that nothing good ever happens without the 'helping hand' of government, and therefore support ever bigger and more involved government, even to the point of the Bernie Sanders crowd, who believe in taking as much as 95% of everything you earn, and only doling it out by government largess and permission (ie Socialist Security and ObamaCare are to them only a 'start').

Which came first, the government, or the people?

 

[Paul_Chance]

Just for a little clarity - it is not a national CCL they're trying to pass, but rather national reciprocity (i.e. if you have a CCL in your home state you can carry in any other state that allows CCL's). Reciprocity already exists, depending on which compact your state participates in.

Michigan has the widest reach, covering 41 states. 48 states issue non-resident CCL's (with a variety of requirements specific to the state). With the right combination of non-resident CCL's you can actually carry in 48 states and DC. Only California and Delaware restrict CCL's to state residents. Four states are actually shall issue states with non-resident programs - meaning all you have to do is ask.

Additionally, LEOSA (a federal law) covers law enforcement officers - current and retired, plus former non-retired with the permission of your ex-agency) and allows them to carry in all 50 states and DC. So, if you want the equivalent volunteer as a LEO in your home state, city or county, go through POST certification and LEOSA will apply to you, spend some time as an auxiliary and you're good to go. (And say "thank you Bill Clinton" as it was part of his omnibus crime bill.)

 

[Hypoxia]

I think the Third Amendment is safe, but Liberals would probably try to water down numbers Four through Ten if they could.

Haven't used up your supply of absurdity pills yet, eh? Maybe you can cop some from a streetcorner alt.leftist. They're everywhere, I hear.

 

[coachdb18]

Just for a little clarity - it is not a national CCL they're trying to pass, but rather national reciprocity (i.e. if you have a CCL in your home state you can carry in any other state that allows CCL's). Reciprocity already exists, depending on which compact your state participates in.

TRUE national reciprocity is knowing your CCL is valid NATIONWIDE. We don't have drivers licenses, or marriage licenses with CAVEATS such as 'in any other state that allows driving WE like/marriage WE like, etc'. In such a situation, those backward thinking Northern/coastal states that don't like guns/cars/marriage can stop anyone from a state they don't like from exercising their rights, so there is only reciprocity in ONE DIRECTION, and then it's only possible for carpetbagger Civil Rights inhibiting bigots to exist without punitive actions in Yankee liberal-land? NOPE, send in the Federal troops, and open that school door, Y'all!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

America is unique in enjoying the freedoms of the US Constitution, and especially to have the protections of the Bill of Rights. Among these is the protection to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment, and it is a personal right, as supported by SCOTUS decision.

There is currently an initiative for 'national carry'. In theory, this is fine... if you trust the Federal government to support the 2nd amendment, which I don't. We came within a hairs breadth of losing the right in this last election, and to trust the right to Federal approval is only as secure as the next election.

It's sad the promises made by the Federal government to every citizen are as tenuous as they are, but due to the fact that they simply cannot be trusted, I remain in favor of the current policy of County Sheriff issuance of conceal carry permits. We know we have the Bill of Rights, we simply no longer have the guarantee that those few politicians who refuse to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution (as their oath demands) are not going to push to deprive us of that right, and others, and are an eminent threat.

We no longer have to get a permit to conceal-carry.

A shooting spree did not ensue...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*chuckle*

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The argument there is the word 'people' being used instead of 'persons' or 'individuals'. It was long interpreted that 'people' meant the population as a whole, the militia being part of the people in effect. Part of the body of the population as opposed to the Government.

The Gunnies interpreted 'people' to mean each person. As I recall, it wasn't until Bush II that the White House adopted that definition. Money well spent by Wayne LaPoopiePant's NRA propaganda machine.

Have you looked into the nature and the composition of the militias of the time and not the "new" definition of what a militia is?

 

[water505]

We no longer have to get a permit to conceal-carry.

A shooting spree did not ensue...

Contrary to liberal buffoonery crime drops when legal gun ownership increases.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I am a militia man.



I am just not a mission man...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*chuckle*

 

[Boxlicker101]

Haven't used up your supply of absurdity pills yet, eh? Maybe you can cop some from a streetcorner alt.leftist. They're everywhere, I hear.

I'm sure I can. The Left has plenty of absurdities for anybody who wants to swallow or embrace them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

For the right price or eternal salvation, I can be a missionary man!

 

[phrodeau]

Contrary to liberal buffoonery crime drops when legal gun ownership increases.

Prove it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Prove it.

Disprove it.

 

[coachdb18]

Prove it.

Google it!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dogpile it!


http://www.dogpile.com