This would only work (for guns) if we had walls between the states where you could be searched when entering a neighboring state. Maybe Trump had the right idea about a wall after all, but it should separate “gun America” from “non-gun America”. I’d pay for that wall.
If they’re well-regulated. Are they? (Hint: The Guard is) Would you even want everyone to be in the Guard?
Article I: “The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Suppress, not enable. Very different things. You could look them up.
The idea that a Constitution would provide for its own violent overthrow is, in fact, crazy. Never mind that it also provides for calling a new Convention if we ever decide it’s as inadequate as the Articles, with no need to suddenly switch from suppressing insurrections to supporting them.
How many tanks, jets, and ships do you guys have stockpiled? Better get cracking. :rolleyes:
Sawed-off ones? Leave all the relevant facts in place, please.
Heller did not disturb or invalidate any Supreme Court precedent; SCOTUS has always held for an individual right without any militia conditioning . . . Even the Heller dissents recognize this; as Breyer wrote (which the other dissenting Justices signed on to):
"I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
[INDENT](1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."[/INDENT]
So all three opinions of Heller affirm that previous Supreme Court decisions held for an individual right.
Absolutely without dispute Heller invalidated lower federal court opinions which, beginning in 1942, inserted the “militia right” (Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942)) and the “state’s right” (U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)) interpretations into the federal courts. That’s where this “collective right” mischief started and that’s what SCOTUS in Heller set right (understand that SCOTUS is not compelled to honor Circuit Court decisions; they are not “precedent” for SCOTUS).
The declaratory clause isn’t explaining why the right exists, it is stating a political reason why the pre-existing, never surrendered right is being held immune from the powers granted to government.
Only the US Constitution rests on the principle of a sovereign people in which / from which all power emanates. The government only possesses the limited powers conferred to it by the people and only exercises those powers with the consent of the governed. If the government ever exceeds the powers granted to it and becomes injurious to the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers granted . . . If this can not be done peacefully, then the people have the right to keep and bear arms which they never surrendered to retake those powers with violence.
As you note, this is a unique system where the government is contractually bound to treat the rights of the people as inherent and not subject to the legitimate powers of the legislature or executive. This was a primary argument against adding a bill of rights – referring again to Federalist 84 and Madison’s introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress (previously linked).
Just because you personally reject those principles has no bearing on their actual enforcement.
How?
But for calling Heller “new precedent”, you do demonstrate that you “get it” . . . That’s good!
When discussing the subject of gun rights under the US Constitution there probably isn’t any argument less compelling than how other nations treat gun ownership or what their subject’s opinion of the US is.
[INDENT]“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)[/INDENT]
What on Earth do you mean by “demographics”? What people comprise “high risk demographics”?
I believe Heller was quite clear that handguns can not be banned.
Well, I’m not sure how you could do it but banning Democrats from owning guns would definitely reduce criminal use and thus injury and death by gunshot – probably by over 2/3’rds . . . While I can see the overall benefit in such a policy I can not support it because I believe strongly in the principle of equal rights and equal application of law for every person everywhere in the USA.
Just because a law-abiding citizen happens to live in an urban, criminal-coddling hellhole, doesn’t mean their rights must be diminished.
.
Barrel shorter than 18" was part of Miller’s crime. In popular parlance, that is a sawed off shotgun.
Yes, and? Your point was that they are military weapons.
Not so crazy after a little research.
It was at the top of Madison’s mind.
Madison, Federalist # 46
The key phrase is “enterprises of ambition”.
The US military oath contains the words
Domestic enemies are those that are in “enterprises of ambition” against “simple government” and its constitution.
The second amendment is not about overthrowing the government it is about defending the constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people .
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
Suggestions for reading:
Another way to say “insurrection”. So?
But we keep getting told that We The People might become tyrannical against ourselves somehow, so we need arms to protect us from ourselves. Crazy.
Oh, and it’s … *interesting *to see science fiction novels presented as references on Constitutional law.
They have been used by the military, as the shot spread is effective in close quarter combat such as trenches, room clearing, etc.
H&K makes a tactical shotgun with a 14" barrel sold only to the police and military in the US, for example.
My first exposure of their military use was during training with USMC Recon Sniper teams, and later during a meeting with procurement and development representatives of the SEALs.
Here is a wiki with an overview of the use of the sawed-off shotgun.
Are you trying to engage in an ad hominem attack against your own argument? Because let me tell you, filling your posts with crazy makes me doubt you as a source.
No. Well regulated=well trained, not heaped upon by rules and regulations. Even assuming that bearing arms is for militia purposes only and nothing else, why would the framers, in an amendment to limit the power of the federal government, give it almost unfettered power to destroy the militia?
It is not for overthrowing the Constitution. It is for whenever the Constitution has already been supplanted.
You see how hard it was for our military to take Iraq, and we still haven’t taken Afghanistan. I mean, I’m not sitting here oiling up my AR-15 to fight the U.S. military, but as the Founders absolutely knew, revolution is the last resort of free people everywhere. Hopefully that will never happen in my grandchildren’s lifetimes. However, sometimes it is better to die a free man than to live as a slave.
So, no, what you’re calling the militia does *not *meet the Constitutional requirement. Glad we agree.
Wrong. The Constitution is simply silent on other purposes.
In the opinion of whom? :dubious: And, if it’s already been supplanted, what purpose does the Constitution then serve? Who would care what it says? We’d already be past that point, at least in that fantasy.
Please note that the Constitution provides a completely non-violent, parliamentary method of supplanting itself.
Would you rather be a “slave”, i.e. citizen of a democratic republic which sometimes passes laws you don’t like, or a “slave” of the local bullyboy gang with their bangsticks and no fear of any higher authority? Or is it that you envision yourself as one of the bullyboys? It’s crazy no matter what.
I love all that brave talk, Molon Labe and cold dead fingers and so forth. Must feel really good to say it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *people *to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See that word I italicized? “People”. They did mention it.
Yep, the No true Scotsman Fallacy.
“developed countries.”:rolleyes: (By the way, Mexico and Russia are developed nations, but of course you cherry picked them out)
“22 other high-income nations”:rolleyes:
Sure, yeah, if you can pick and choose what nations you want to compare the USA to, then you can make the uSA look great or bad. And, I dont care if it is a gun death or a knife death or a bomb death- I want to know what my chances of being murdered by any method is.
And that bogus cite includes suicides*, of course. Suicides are not gun violence. They are a choice. A tragic and sad choice, in many cases, but a choice none the less.
“third-world shitholes” are not “civilized”? Isnt that from Trump Playbook? And more than a tad racist?
So, rather than try the bogus argument of picking and choosing date that supports my argument, as you did here, I went for ALL the nations. And for ALl the methods of murder.
Out of 219 NON Cherry picked countries, the USA is right in the middle. That is all the nations. Of the entire world community, the USA is average.
I could do what you did, and compare the USA to the Americans (continents) nations- why not, that’s just as good as “Developed” and “high income”. And there the USA ranks almost at the bottom, 24th out of 26. Boy, when you get to cherry pick data, you can prove anything, right?
- gun grabbers *love *to include suicides among their stats, as they increase the numbers by 200% or so.
Not notable scholars, notable writers. I noted the lack of Judges, Law professors, etc.
But yes, as in any controversial decision, different opinions abound. How many writers out there have written arguments versus Roe? However, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, still the sources you are talking about are in the *minority.
Ah, “First world nations”:rolleyes: I suppose that excludes “third world shitholes” :rolleyes:as you call them? But of course , you also exclude Russia and Mexico and others from “developed” or “First world” nations, as their data doesnt fit your points.
Yes, and you know, they tried “effective gun control” for quite some time before Heller, and it didnt work. Of course, excuses were made, they always will be.
Ah yes, polls. in that poll at that time, 52% (and bare majority) of Americans think gun controls should be stronger. And, of course, even with heller and the 2nd, they can be, that was made clear.
Let’s see the most popular gun controls:"About nine-in-ten Americans (89%) favor preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns. Nearly as many favor requiring background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows (84%) and barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists (83%). Roughly two-thirds or more strongly favor all of these proposals.
**All of those are perfectly legal under Heller. ** In fact the first two are the law in many areas.
But lets look at that last " barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists ". You know how inaccurate those lists are? Very. You know how you get on one of those lists? A Agent put you on. That’s it. There’s no judicial review, no probable cause.
When Americans were educated about how crappy and undemocratic those “no-fly or watch lists” were, their support plummeted.
Confederate cavalry raiders used them, I dunno if that’s where I’d hang my hat, however.
http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm
US Tyrannical organizations:
http://canwebelieveit.info/2010/09/30/list-of-anti-american-organizations/
https://www.broadleft.org/us.htm
In light of the list, It is advisable that We The People should bear arms! Not so crazy!
Afghanis must be terrible shots then. They’ve managed to kill 1,865 Americans in 15 years. Far more people were shot in Chicago in that same time.
Having guns has almost nothing to do with it. Armed citizenry pretty much get massacred when trying to face a professional army. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is able to go for decades like this because they simply refuse to capitulate. They are willing to tolerate terrible conditions forever. Eventually the occupying force gets tired and goes home.
Neither an ad-hom or crazy. Wolfpup first said that there is “overwhelming support for barring gun sales to high-risk demographics”. Then he mentions “Democrats” as being a “demographic” . . . I played along.
I expressed my puzzlement at the choice of that term to describe those who could be forbidden to own a gun. I’ve never heard anyone mention the mental incompetent “demographic”, the felon “demographic”, the wife beater “demographic” or the dishonorably discharged “demographic” (those being some of the federal 18 U.S.C. §922(g) gun dispossession criteria).
My assignment of a 2/3’rds reduction in gun crime (if Democrats were to be barred from owning guns) is just an estimate given gun crime stats. The fact is, “almost 60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metros”, those areas are typically, reliably, predominately Democrat.
Are you saying that holding liberal views makes a person more likely to shoot someone?
I think he’s saying he’s not correcting for population density.