[W:435]Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Rucker61 said:

You do realize that Heller prohibits a requirement to keep all firearms in an inaccessible condition.

Click to expand...

The argument is not to keep all firearms inaccessible. The argument is to keep them secured. In a holster on your person is secured, and accessible. Chicago didn't even let you keep a loaded gun in a quick-access lockbox, or on a nightstand with a trigger lock, which are two examples of secure storage being advocated here.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Bucky said:

It is silly to arm schools because the shooter will just go to a hospital, library, shopping mall, any public place with a high casualty count.

Click to expand...

He'll go there but he'll be confronted and stopped. That's why mall shootings aren't a thing while school shootings are. Malls are not gun free zones while schools are. Most mass shootings occur in gun free zones. These people are sick, not stupid, and go fo the easier gun-free target. Consider the theater shooting in Aurora Colorado a couple years back. There were several theaters in that area, but the gunman chose the only theater that prohibited guns.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

DebateChallenge said:

See post #64

Click to expand...

DebateChallenge said:

Lets say your house is being broken into, would you want to have to unlock a safe to get a gun while that is happening or would you want immediate access?

Click to expand...

A gun sitting on the nightstand by your bed while you're asleep is being used, not stored, so there's no need to put it in a safe.

Safe storage laws are about guns you aren't using. If you're carrying it then you're using it even if you aren't pulling the trigger.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

Lets see-Scholars I have actually discussed in person the second Amendment with

Ian Ayres
Akhil Reed Amar (at least 25 times)
Eugene Volokh
Gary Simson
Laurence Tribe
Steven Calabresi
Robert Bork
Lee Liberman Otis
alan Gura (lead counsel in Heller)
Paul Clement-former US SG
Guido Calabresi

and many more.

Click to expand...

That you aren't quoting a relevant portion of their work and providing links to where I can read it for myself, is how I know you're lying right now. Anyone can Google up some names and it doesn't change the dry historical fact that the second amendment was written to protect State militia. The individual RKBA is a tool, a means to an end, not the goal. At least it was until Heller. being able to carry a pistol for self defence was a perk, not the purpose. Now, after Heller, the first half of the second amendment doesn't exist and it's no longer about protecting the Militia. Rights change.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

That you aren't quoting a relevant portion of their work and providing links to where I can read it for myself, is how I know you're lying right now. Anyone can Google up some names and it doesn't change the dry historical fact that the second amendment was written to protect State militia. The individual RKBA is a tool, a means to an end, not the goal. At least it was until Heller. being able to carry a pistol for self defence was a perk, not the purpose. Now, after Heller, the first half of the second amendment doesn't exist and it's no longer about protecting the Militia. Rights change.

Click to expand...

Is the ability of the state to have a militia no longer in existence? Didn't SCOTUS say in 1876 that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." If the Second only existed to protect militia, why did so many states include an individual right to use arms in self defense, both before and after ratification of the Bill of Rights?

How do you link the right to carry handguns in self defense to Heller when the movement for "shall issue" began two decades before Heller?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Rucker61 said:

Is the ability of the state to have a militia no longer in existence?

Click to expand...

I don't see how that question is relevant given that no one here implied that states cannot have a militia.

Rucker61 said:

Didn't SCOTUS say in 1876 that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."

Click to expand...

The individual RKBA means bearing arms for a lawful purpose, yes. Again, I don't see where you're going with this.

Rucker61 said:

This is not a right granted by the Constitution.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a right granted by the Constitution for the 2 years between the Constitution's ratification and the creation of the BoR. During those 2 years, it was up to the States and just because you had an RKBA in one State didn't mean you had the RKBA in another State. And before that, just because you had a given right under Colonial law didn't mean you were going to have that right under the new American law. There is no unbroken and consistent RKBA independant of law. At the moment the 2A became law, the RKBA changed and became a right provided by the Constitution. This was even an argument against making the BoR at all. Before the 2A, it was argued that we didn't need the 2A because the government hadn't been granted the power to regulate arms in the first place. By creating the 2A we established that the government does have the power to regulate arms and thuse we need an amendment to curb that power.

Rucker61 said:

Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Click to expand...

And yet, it is. The dissenting opinion even points that out, and I may remind you that truth is not determined by a vote, even a SCOTUS vote. SCOTUS also ruled that blacks weren't "people" and the right to vote didn't apply to women. SCOTS gets it wrong from time to time and they got this wrong as well. If the 2A were repealed then your RKBA would be up to each State to decide for themselves until a new Federal law were written.

Rucker61 said:

If the Second only existed to protect militia, why did so many states include an individual right to use arms in self-defense, both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

I've already explained this twice. The worry was that Congress would use the Constitution to assert a legal preemption and then undermine State militia by under-funding and under-training the militia. The Second Amendment was needed to prevent any kind of Federal preemption law.

Rucker61 said:

How do you link the right to carry handguns in self-defense to Heller when the movement for "shall issue" began two decades before Heller?

Click to expand...

Did I say the right to carry handguns for self-defense began with Heller? No. Many governments throught history have made a right to arms in one form or another. It didn't begin with Heller.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

Lets see-Scholars I have actually discussed in person the second Amendment with

Ian Ayres
Akhil Reed Amar (at least 25 times)
Eugene Volokh
Gary Simson
Laurence Tribe
Steven Calabresi
Robert Bork
Lee Liberman Otis
alan Gura (lead counsel in Heller)
Paul Clement-former US SG
Guido Calabresi

and many more.

Click to expand...

What you have to do, now that you've dropped these names, is to show where they all say that "Gee Turtle Dude, you're absolutely right about everything you say about the second amendment and we should be in YOUR classroom!". OR, you can show their written work that proves how right you are about everything you say about the second amendment.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

That you aren't quoting a relevant portion of their work and providing links to where I can read it for myself, is how I know you're lying right now. Anyone can Google up some names and it doesn't change the dry historical fact that the second amendment was written to protect State militia. The individual RKBA is a tool, a means to an end, not the goal. At least it was until Heller. being able to carry a pistol for self defence was a perk, not the purpose. Now, after Heller, the first half of the second amendment doesn't exist and it's no longer about protecting the Militia. Rights change.

Click to expand...

if I send you a picture of me with Akhil Reed Amar-=who was one of my better friends at Yale will you publicly apologize? How about my other close friends Steven Calabresi and Lee Liberman? My father and Bork went to HS together and his son Charlie was another fairly good friend in college. Yeah, I had dinner at their house. I guess you cannot contemplate that someone who spent time at Yale would run into eminent legal scholars.

Since you persist in spewing stupidity-what was the natural right that the founders were trying to protect with the second amendment? and why did the CRUIKSHANK case state that the right is not dependent on the constitution. What does that mean to you

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

jet57 said:

What you have to do, now that you've dropped these names, is to show where they all say that "Gee Turtle Dude, you're absolutely right about everything you say about the second amendment and we should be in YOUR classroom!". OR, you can show their written work that proves how right you are about everything you say about the second amendment.

Click to expand...

Well we know that they would tell you that your stupid claims about shotguns being rifles or that "weapons of war" has no relevance in second amendment scholarship. And since you want to play games-what was the natural right that the founders believe the second amendment was MERELY RECOGNIZING (rather than creating)

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

if I send you a picture of me with Akhil Reed Amar-=who was one of my better friends at Yale will you publicly apologize? How about my other close friends Steven Calabresi and Lee Liberman? My father and Bork went to HS together and his son Charlie was another fairly good friend in college. Yeah, I had dinner at their house. I guess you cannot contemplate that someone who spent time at Yale would run into eminent legal scholars.

Since you persist in spewing stupidity-what was the natural right that the founders were trying to protect with the second amendment? and why did the CRUIKSHANK case state that the right is not dependent on the constitution? What does that mean to you

Click to expand...

Well, I just talked to the Pope and he's sure you could Google up some pictures with these people posing with their actual friends. Not you, but people who actually know them. Shouldn't be any harder to find than looking in their FB profile, actually. His Holiness also notes that you still aren't quoting the words of these people and linking to where those words can be read by anyone, nor have you invited them to join this forum and speak for themselves.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

Well we know that they would tell you that your stupid claims about shotguns being rifles or that "weapons of war" has no relevance in second amendment scholarship. And since you want to play games-what was the natural right that the founders believe the second amendment was MERELY RECOGNIZING (rather than creating)

Click to expand...

Natural rights do not exist. Nature gave you teeth and a liver, not rights.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

Natural rights do not exist. Nature gave you teeth and a liver, not rights.

Click to expand...

You keep making the same mistake over and over. Whether natural rights exist or not is NOT the issue. The issue is what did the founders intend. You have been informed of this dozens of times and yet you repeat the same stupidity over and over. What was the natural right the founders believed was merely recognized by the 2nd? Do you comprehend what Cruikshank said?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

Well we know that they would tell you that your stupid claims about shotguns being rifles or that "weapons of war" has no relevance in second amendment scholarship. And since you want to play games-what was the natural right that the founders believe the second amendment was MERELY RECOGNIZING (rather than creating)

Click to expand...

You can't prove they think you're right can you. You dropped names in a failed attempt to make yourself sound important and correct about the second amendment didn't you. You were at an autograph party weren't you.

YOU know nothing about the constitution or the second amendment.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

jet57 said:

You can't prove they think you're right can you. You dropped names in a failed attempt to make yourself sound important and correct about the second amendment didn't you. You were at an autograph party weren't you.

YOU know nothing about the constitution or the second amendment.

Click to expand...

LOL we should take a poll-who knows more about the second amendment. This is coming from a guy who claims "weapons of war" need to be banned. Can you tell us what the second amendment was supposed to recognize? You won't even try because you know an honest answer destroys the bs you spew. You figure out who signed the Brady Bill? You figure out that a shotgun is not a rifle?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

You keep making the same mistake over and over. Whether natural rights exist or not is NOT the issue. The issue is what did the founders intend.

Click to expand...

This is the 4th time I have to explain this on this thread. They intended to protect the state militia.

However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.

So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.

Second Amendment - HISTORY

Click to expand...

Since natural rights do not exist, any notion that the 2A was referring to one such right is invalid. Since only legal rights exist, and then only when there's law saying so, your Federal RKBA exists only because the 2A says so. Remove the 2A and your RKBA vanishes.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

This is the 4th time I have to explain this on this thread. They intended to protect the state militia.

Click to expand...

OK so how is it that the founders believed the right existed since the dawn of man-endowed by the creator-you are claiming that one has to be a member of a state run militia for the right to vest. Can you square that with CRUIKSHANK? No you cannot. I find it hilarious how you try to play both sides of these issues. You claim to be pro gun but you really don't think there is an individual right or that the right only vests after you join something. It is obvious you haven't had any serious scholarship in constitutional theory.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

We can agree on that at least. When not in use, a gun should be unloaded and locked. A rated safe is best but I'll settle for a trigger lock.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The most useless firearm is one that is not readily available. It takes about 5 minutes to wake up, get to the safe, open it, find the weapon, load it. It takes about 1 second for a fit 20 YO male to travel 20 feet. Most home invaders are fit 20 YO males. A gun unloaded in a safe is a useless self defense weapon.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

LOL we should take a poll-who knows more about the second amendment. This is coming from a guy who claims "weapons of war" need to be banned. Can you tell us what the second amendment was supposed to recognize? You won't even try because you know an honest answer destroys the bs you spew. You figure out who signed the Brady Bill? You figure out that a shotgun is not a rifle?

Click to expand...

You can't prove -ANY - of your silly assertions about "experts" you talk to - can you. So, you have to shift the subject with a whole new set of silly assertions and fake superior knowledge...

I mopped up the floor with you - again.

see how easy that was?

:2wave:

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

jet57 said:

You can't prove -ANY - of your silly assertions about "experts" you talk to - can you. So, you have to shift the subject with a whole new set of silly assertions and fake superior knowledge...

I mopped up the floor with you - again.

see how easy that was?

:2wave:

Click to expand...

you make an unsupported assertion that has no basis in fact and you pretend you won. This is coming from a guy who is seen as the most ignorant of all the anti gun posters/ The guy who claimed that an AR 15 is a weapon of war. The guy who who claims a shotgun is a rifle and that Reagan signed the Brady bill. A guy who constantly runs away from questions that destroy his idiocy about the second amendment.

Tell us Jet-why did the Cruikshank Court say that the right guaranteed by the second amendment was not created by the constitution? Are you even remotely able to comprehend what that means?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."

FFS people...you may not LIKE what the founding father wrote and you may not like what they DID...but it is undeniable that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL...not the state, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers knew and understood that THE PEOPLE are the militia. WE...the PEOPLE...are guaranteed the right or better put, the powers of government are restricted where the rights of the people are guaranteed.

The Bill of Rights was written in 1787 by George Mason, with the document proposed by Madison to the congress. Mason also wrote this familiar 'declaration'...“That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights… among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.” Mason's position was that the people should NOT be restricted rights to access to their firearms and that "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

The people are the militia.

The first Militia Act was not even written until 1792. The 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights...written and ratified...was OBVIOUSLY not meant to sanction a government body.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:

OK so how is it that the founders believed the right existed since the dawn of man-endowed by the creator-

Click to expand...

They were deists, they believed no such thing. Funny that the 3 rights 'endowed by the creator' were subject to human revision, too. It was supposed to be life, liberty, and property until men changed it to be something else. No, they wrote down what they thought they could get everyone to go along with, not what was objectivly truthfull.

Rights don't exist without a law saying so. Versions of a RKBA existed before the 2A only because previous governments made laws creating a RKBA for themselves. There is no unbroken and consistent RKBA independent of law. There is no "the" RKBA intrinsically in nature.

TurtleDude said:

you are claiming that one has to be a member of a state-run militia for the right to vest.

Click to expand...

Nope, I have never said that I don't believe that, I have said the exact opposite to you many times. The right is vested. Period. Current militia membership or not. It's the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

That the RKBA applies to everyone regardless of membership.

TurtleDude said:

I find it hilarious how you try to play both sides of these issues.

Click to expand...

There are more than 2 sides to every issue. The RKBA looks more like a 20-sided die than a coin.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

VanceMack said:

...but it is undeniable that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL...not the state, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers knew and understood that THE PEOPLE are the militia. WE...the PEOPLE...are guaranteed the right or better put, the powers of government are restricted where the rights of the people are guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Protecting the State militia was the destination, the individual RKBA was the vehicle that got us there. Just because protecting the state militia was the destination doesn't mean you can't take the vehicle out to make other stops.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

They were deists, they believed no such thing. Funny that the 3 rights 'endowed by the creator' were subject to human revision, too. It was supposed to be life, liberty, and property until men changed it to be something else. No, they wrote down what they thought they could get everyone to go along with, not what was objectivly truthfull.

Rights don't exist without a law saying so. Versions of a RKBA existed before the 2A only because previous governments made laws creating a RKBA for themselves. There is no unbroken and consistent RKBA independent of law. There is no "the" RKBA intrinsically in nature.


Nope, I have never said that I don't believe that, I have said the exact opposite to you many times. The right is vested. Period. Current militia membership or not. It's the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

That the RKBA applies to everyone regardless of membership.


There are more than 2 sides to every issue. The RKBA looks more like a 20-sided die than a coin.

Click to expand...

LOL-ok, whatever.

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Wayne Jr said:

Protecting the State militia was the destination, the individual RKBA was the vehicle that got us there. Just because protecting the state militia was the destination doesn't mean you can't take the vehicle out to make other stops.

Click to expand...

Who is "the Militia?"

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

VanceMack said:

Assuming you arent in one of those quasi organized militias or the actual 'organized' militia (The state Guard and state Militias), the intent of the founding fathers was that EVERY citizen with the exception of a select few would be members of the Militia. Yeah...you are somewhat right I suppose that the folks running around in the woods arent the 'real' militia, but again...that isnt the intent. The intent is that in the case of the gravest extreme...and we are nowhere near there and hopefully...HOPEFULLY never will be...the intent is that EVERY citizen be armed, trained in the use of their firearms, and their firearms be 'well regulated' (kept in good working order) and the citizen have an appropriate amount of ammunition to be able to augment the organized militias...in the gravest extreme. The citizen soldier is the last line of defense for the country. You probably scoff at that notion and if you did you would be foolish. 1-we arent the only nation that prepares for a final defense in such a manner but also, 2 you are mistaken of you dont believe 100-120 million very well armed citizens would make a formidable fighting force. Of those citizens, approx 30 million in total have some form of military or law enforcement background. A similar number...30.46 million...shoot on a regular basis.

Back to the original statement...assuming you arent in the standing miitia...YOU are in the militia. The US Code clearly distinguishes roles.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do scoff at the notion, because the "citizen soldier" routinely proved laughably incompetent and failed to defend the country. Case in point.....Bladensburg, where the "citizen soldiers" broke the land speed record fleeing and left the professionals stuck....and the capital wiped out.

The idea of every single citizen being armed is a bad joke. It would end hilariously badly.

Target shooting or shooting at deer is not in any way, shape or form equivalent to a situation where other human beings are shooting at you.