How do we keep...

[TurtleDude]

How so? Congressional power to discipline the militia is pretty clear-cut, is it not?

people not called up are not in the militia or subject to congressional control. you don't seem to understand what a militia is. its not a professional army. Its an ad hoc military force called up to deal with a specific problem. once the problem is solved, and the members return to civilian life, they no longer under the command of their officers. they come and go as they please, they dress as they like, eat what they want, associate with whomever they please--those things are all limited when you are actually serving in the militia

I'll be back tomorrow. I have taught constitutional law and lectured at several major league law schools on the second amendment in front of judges, law professors, law students and lawyers. the militia angle has never been very useful and if it had been, it would have been used to flush Miller's positions in Miller 80 or so years ago.

 

[Cordelier]

people not called up are not in the militia or subject to congressional control. you don't seem to understand what a militia is. its not a professional army. Its an ad hoc military force called up to deal with a specific problem. once the problem is solved, and the members return to civilian life, they no longer under the command of their officers. they come and go as they please, they dress as they like, eat what they want, associate with whomever they please--those things are all limited when you are actually serving in the militia

I'll be back tomorrow. I have taught constitutional law and lectured at several major league law schools on the second amendment in front of judges, law professors, law students and lawyers. the militia angle has never been very useful and if it had been, it would have been used to flush Miller's positions in Miller 80 or so years ago.

You don't seem to grasp that Congress' power to organize and discipline the militia exist at all times... Article I, Section 8 draws a clear distinction of Congressional powers before and after the militia is called into Federal service.

 

[Cordelier]

people not called up are not in the militia or subject to congressional control. you don't seem to understand what a militia is. its not a professional army. Its an ad hoc military force called up to deal with a specific problem. once the problem is solved, and the members return to civilian life, they no longer under the command of their officers. they come and go as they please, they dress as they like, eat what they want, associate with whomever they please--those things are all limited when you are actually serving in the militia

I'll be back tomorrow. I have taught constitutional law and lectured at several major league law schools on the second amendment in front of judges, law professors, law students and lawyers. the militia angle has never been very useful and if it had been, it would have been used to flush Miller's positions in Miller 80 or so years ago.

Okie doke... We'll have to take this up again tomorrow... right now I'm going to re-read McCulloch v. Maryland - you made a pretty good point there earlier on the coefficient clause.

 

[Into the Night]

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.

Not a mass killing. Only two were killed. Despite his use of an AR-15 to fire 39 shots in that 10 minutes (any gun can do that!), only two were killed. Not a good example of your argument.

Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.

He was also a police officer. Oops.

June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

This shooter used a Walther P22 and a Glock 19, both pistols. One a .22, the other a 9mm. No AR-15 was used. No shotgun was used. Only one Glock was used. No rifle of any kind was used.

Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.

A Bushmaster is not an AR-15. It has elements of the AR-15 action in its components. Why not? It's a reliable action. It's been around long before the AR-15. You forgot the mention the two pistols he used.

June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.

He used a homemade gun and a revolver. A homemade gun is not an AR-15.

March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.

Not a mass shooting. Another bad example of your argument.

May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.

Not a mass shooting. Another poor example of your argument.

Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.

Not a mass shooting.

Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.

These were Islamic terrorists. They used modified AR-15's as well as pipe bombs. Hey...those are already illegal! Gun control laws sure didn't stop them!

June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.

A Sig Sauer MCX is not an AR-15 or even patterned like an AR-15. It is a totally different gun. It doesn't even use a .223 cartridge. It uses a 7.62mm cartridge.

Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.

Already discussed earlier. This is one example that actually supports your argument.

Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.

The Ruger is not an AR-15. It is patterned after an AR-15. It's a stretch, but I'll give you this one as number two.

Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

Number three. An AR-15.

So a lot of your examples are not really examples at all. Get yer facts straight, dude.

One other thing you forgot to mention, the number of these shooters that were being treated with mind altering drugs by various psychoquacks. Drugs known to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies.

So who killed these people? The shooter or the psychoquacks? In my opinion, BOTH.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not a mass killing. Only two were killed. Despite his use of an AR-15 to fire 39 shots in that 10 minutes (any gun can do that!), only two were killed. Not a good example of your argument.

He was also a police officer. Oops.

This shooter used a Walther P22 and a Glock 19, both pistols. One a .22, the other a 9mm. No AR-15 was used. No shotgun was used. Only one Glock was used. No rifle of any kind was used.

A Bushmaster is not an AR-15. It has elements of the AR-15 action in its components. Why not? It's a reliable action. It's been around long before the AR-15. You forgot the mention the two pistols he used.

He used a homemade gun and a revolver. A homemade gun is not an AR-15.

Not a mass shooting. Another bad example of your argument.

Not a mass shooting. Another poor example of your argument.

Not a mass shooting.

These were Islamic terrorists. They used modified AR-15's as well as pipe bombs. Hey...those are already illegal! Gun control laws sure didn't stop them!

A Sig Sauer MCX is not an AR-15 or even patterned like an AR-15. It is a totally different gun. It doesn't even use a .223 cartridge. It uses a 7.62mm cartridge.

Already discussed earlier. This is one example that actually supports your argument.

The Ruger is not an AR-15. It is patterned after an AR-15. It's a stretch, but I'll give you this one as number two.

Number three. An AR-15.

So a lot of your examples are not really examples at all. Get yer facts straight, dude.

One other thing you forgot to mention, the number of these shooters that were being treated with mind altering drugs by various psychoquacks. Drugs known to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies.

So who killed these people? The shooter or the psychoquacks? In my opinion, BOTH.

Sig MCX is available in 556 I own one-its a piston driven rifle but the lower receiver is compatible with AR 15s. the Bushmaster is a brand of AR 15-own several. other than those two errors, the rest is sound. Jet's arguments against AR 15s are based on the fact he cannot own one.

 

[vegas giants]

I think the militia clause gives it even wider latitude... and it also has the advantage of having a direct link with the Second Amendment via the prefatory clause.

I have also argued that point as well so I agree

 

[vegas giants]

Ban? No, I don't think Congressional power goes that far.... but I do think there is scope for imposing some order of discipline on ownership.

Congress has already banned some weapons and that has not been deemed unconstitutional

 

[Cordelier]

Congress has already banned some weapons and that has not been deemed unconstitutional

I agree that certain classes of weapons may be banned... but Turtle's post was about banning all firearms, which would be unconstitutional. We have the right to keep and bear arms... but that right isn't an unlimited right to keep and bear whatever type of weaponry we desire. No right enumerated by the Constitution is absolute - they all have limitations.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree that certain classes of weapons may be banned... but Turtle's post was about banning all firearms, which would be unconstitutional. We have the right to keep and bear arms... but that right isn't an unlimited right to keep and bear whatever type of weaponry we desire. No right enumerated by the Constitution is absolute - they all have limitations.

how does a negative restriction on the government have limitations Properly? where do those limitations come from? what amendment created that limitation

the second amendment was about arms citizens would keep and bear/ That means the negative restriction doesn't apply to say things like nukes or artillery

but at what point does the negative restriction cease to exist based on how many rounds are in a gun's magazine or how fast it can shoot?

 

[vegas giants]

I agree that certain classes of weapons may be banned... but Turtle's post was about banning all firearms, which would be unconstitutional. We have the right to keep and bear arms... but that right isn't an unlimited right to keep and bear whatever type of weaponry we desire. No right enumerated by the Constitution is absolute - they all have limitations.

No I don't think we could ban all firearms and I don't think anyone has seriously proposed that in our government. But the second amendment is subject to limitations

 

[Into the Night]

Sig MCX is available in 556 I own one-its a piston driven rifle but the lower receiver is compatible with AR 15s. the Bushmaster is a brand of AR 15-own several. other than those two errors, the rest is sound. Jet's arguments against AR 15s are based on the fact he cannot own one.

Yeah. I figured I would have an error in there or two. I thought I would check up on his data though. Usually when someone makes a list like that, they are blowing a lot of smoke. Thanks for catching it.

 

[Into the Night]

I agree that certain classes of weapons may be banned.

The federal government does not have that authority. Neither do most State governments. It can be (and I believe it successfully has) been argued that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual States as well.

.. but Turtle's post was about banning all firearms, which would be unconstitutional.

Banning any firearm is unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives the government the right to pick and choose weapons to ban.

We have the right to keep and bear arms... but that right isn't an unlimited right to keep and bear whatever type of weaponry we desire.

It IS unlimited. NOTHING in the constitution specifies what type of arm may be banned.

No right enumerated by the Constitution is absolute - they all have limitations.

The right to defend oneself, using the weapons of your own choice, is inherent in the rights of Man. The right for a State to defend itself, using the weapons of it's own choice is inherent in the rights of a State. The Constitution specifically prohibits the passing of any law that curtails or limits this right in any way.

 

[prometeus]

how does a negative restriction on the government have limitations Properly?

What is the basis of not allowing shouting fire in a packed theatre?

the second amendment was about arms citizens would keep and bear

It should be about self determination, the very basis of the foundation of the nation, and that does limit government from dictating to a free man what (s)he can or can not own.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is the basis of not allowing shouting fire in a packed theatre?

It should be about self determination, the very basis of the foundation of the nation, and that does limit government from dictating to a free man what (s)he can or can not own.

that's a state restriction on ACTION. you possess the Right to scream fire in a crowded theater if threes indeed a fire or if its a theatrical production which screaming fire is not designed to cause panic

you clearly don't understand the concept of a limited federal government

 

[vegas giants]

The federal government does not have that authority. Neither do most State governments. It can be (and I believe it successfully has) been argued that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual States as well.

Banning any firearm is unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives the government the right to pick and choose weapons to ban.

It IS unlimited. NOTHING in the constitution specifies what type of arm may be banned.

The right to defend oneself, using the weapons of your own choice, is inherent in the rights of Man. The right for a State to defend itself, using the weapons of it's own choice is inherent in the rights of a State. The Constitution specifically prohibits the passing of any law that curtails or limits this right in any way.

Just about all of this is wrong

 

[Rucker61]

What is the basis of not allowing shouting fire in a packed theatre?

Schenck v. United States was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

 

[Into the Night]

that's a state restriction on ACTION. you possess the Right to scream fire in a crowded theater if threes indeed a fire or if its a theatrical production which screaming fire is not designed to cause panic

you clearly don't understand the concept of a limited federal government

This is correct. The 1st amendment is a restriction on the Federal government and only the Federal government. It does not apply to any State government or individual.

States get to say if a religion is a State Religion. States have in the past had exactly that. Some of them are thinking of returning to that. It is perfectly legal for them to do so, if their State constitution allows for it.

The Federal government cannot pass any laws restricting any form of speech (including the FCC's so-called list of 'dirty words'), cannot pass any laws restricting belief in any religion or to establish a State Religion, and cannot pass laws preventing people from peacefully assembling or to protest their grievances. Most States following similar principles in their own constitutions, but there ARE variations in them.

Anywhere you go, screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater is legal, if there is indeed a fire that people need to flee.

 

[Into the Night]

Schenck v. United States was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

A more correct ruling after all (although still wrong). No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.

The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. The federal government is the agent created by that contract. An agent cannot modify the contract that created him. Only the owners of that contract can do that. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the several States. Only the States can modify that contract.

In a similar fashion, the constitution of a State is a contract owned by the people of that State. The State is the agent created by that contract, and cannot modify it's own contract. Only the people can do that. They are the owners of that contract.

All any court can do is to test a law against the constitution. It cannot test or modify the constitution itself.

In the first ruling, the court exceeded their authority. In the 2nd ruling, they are more in line with their limits of authority.

 

[vegas giants]

A more correct ruling after all (although still wrong). No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.

The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. The federal government is the agent created by that contract. An agent cannot modify the contract that created him. Only the owners of that contract can do that. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the several States. Only the States can modify that contract.

In a similar fashion, the constitution of a State is a contract owned by the people of that State. The State is the agent created by that contract, and cannot modify it's own contract. Only the people can do that. They are the owners of that contract.

All any court can do is to test a law against the constitution. It cannot test or modify the constitution itself.

In the first ruling, the court exceeded their authority. In the 2nd ruling, they are more in line with their limits of authority.

This is all just opinion that is not shared by anyone in power

 

[prometeus]

that's a state restriction on ACTION.

The action of speaking?

you possess the Right to scream fire in a crowded theater if threes indeed a fire or if its a theatrical production which screaming fire is not designed to cause panic

Seriously? Coming from you that is pathetic.

you clearly don't understand the concept of a limited federal government

I assure you I understand it at least as well as you do and I suspect you know that too.

 

[prometeus]

Schenck v. United States was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Indeed, a limited restriction, but clearly an abrogation of the absolute.

 

[Anarchon]

This is correct. The 1st amendment is a restriction on the Federal government and only the Federal government. It does not apply to any State government or individual.

Someone isn't familiar with incorporation.

 

[Cordelier]

The federal government does not have that authority. Neither do most State governments. It can be (and I believe it successfully has) been argued that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual States as well.

Banning any firearm is unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gives the government the right to pick and choose weapons to ban.

It IS unlimited. NOTHING in the constitution specifies what type of arm may be banned.

The right to defend oneself, using the weapons of your own choice, is inherent in the rights of Man. The right for a State to defend itself, using the weapons of it's own choice is inherent in the rights of a State. The Constitution specifically prohibits the passing of any law that curtails or limits this right in any way.

If the Second Amendment had no prefatory clause and just read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... would you interpret it any differently than you do now?

 

[Rucker61]

If the Second Amendment had no prefatory clause and just read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... would you interpret it any differently than you do now?

Do you know how Madison's first draft of the Second Amendment read?

 

[Cordelier]

Do you know how Madison's first draft of the Second Amendment read?

I do... but obviously his first draft isn't what was ratified.