How do we keep...

[Rucker61]

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

According to Heller, the prefatory statement is exactly that. We can't even find an example of where the federal government ever required militia membership to own a firearm. If the belief was that the collective view was the intent, no state constitution could have protected an imaginary individual right.

 

[Cordelier]

According to Heller, the prefatory statement is exactly that. We can't even find an example of where the federal government ever required militia membership to own a firearm. If the belief was that the collective view was the intent, no state constitution could have protected an imaginary individual right.

So then why not go with Madison's first draft? What was the original intent in adding the prefatory clause if it has no operative effect on the right?

 

[Rucker61]

So then why not go with Madison's first draft? What was the original intent in adding the prefatory clause if it has no operative effect on the right?

How many other rights in the Bill of Rights were changed from the first draft?

How could it have an effect on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms if the militia had no right to keep and bear arms? Or in other words, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

 

[TurtleDude]

The action of speaking?

Seriously? Coming from you that is pathetic.

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

are you SERIOUSLY arguing that speaking is not an action?

pathetic is pretending that banning my ability to own something is the same as punishing ACTIONS that are intended to cause harm.

 

[Cordelier]

How many other rights in the Bill of Rights were changed from the first draft?

How could it have an effect on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms if the militia had no right to keep and bear arms? Or in other words, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

How many other right in the Bill of Rights have a prefatory clause?

Obviously the militia has the right to keep and bear arms.... Nobody is arguing against that. My argument is that the keeping and bearing of those arms is subject to whatever discipline Congress deems necessary and proper for a functioning of a well regulated militia.

 

[Rucker61]

How many other right in the Bill of Rights have a prefatory clause?

Obviously the militia has the right to keep and bear arms.... Nobody is arguing against that. My argument is that the keeping and bearing of those arms is subject to whatever discipline Congress deems necessary and proper for a functioning of a well regulated militia.

That argument has been dead for a long time. Miller put that to bed.

 

[Cordelier]

That argument has been dead for a long time. Miller put that to bed.

Really? Because I didn't see the National Firearms Act being struck down by Miller. If Congress passed a law making all semi-auto rifles Title II weapons, what would be the constitutional barrier to doing so?

 

[Rucker61]

Really? Because I didn't see the National Firearms Act being struck down by Miller. If Congress passed a law making all semi-auto rifles Title II weapons, what would be the constitutional barrier to doing so?

That's not what you said. You said Congress can impose any law if it's necessary and proper to support a well regulated Militia. If Congress says that the makeup of the militia is just 20 men, and they are to be armed with swords, then they have no right to be armed with firearms.

If they can make all semiauto firearms class II, they can make all firearms class II, or simply ban them if banning them is "necessary and proper".

Are semiauto weapons in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[Into the Night]

Someone isn't familiar with incorporation.

I am very familiar with it. What about incorporation? Why are you redirecting here?

 

[Into the Night]

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?

The 2nd amendment does not have a prefatory clause.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Irrelevant. That is not what is in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

According to Heller, the prefatory statement is exactly that. We can't even find an example of where the federal government ever required militia membership to own a firearm. If the belief was that the collective view was the intent, no state constitution could have protected an imaginary individual right.

The 2nd amendment has no prefatory statement. The first part of the 2nd amendment is not discussing a federal militia. It is discussing the inherent right of a State to defend itself. The right to defend yourself is not an imaginary right. It is inherent in the rights of Man.

 

[Into the Night]

So then why not go with Madison's first draft? What was the original intent in adding the prefatory clause if it has no operative effect on the right?

There is no prefatory clause to the 2nd amendment.

 

[Into the Night]

How many other rights in the Bill of Rights were changed from the first draft?

How could it have an effect on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms if the militia had no right to keep and bear arms? Or in other words, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

There is no prefatory clause to the 2nd amendment. This amendment discusses TWO rights, not one.

 

[Into the Night]

Really? Because I didn't see the National Firearms Act being struck down by Miller. If Congress passed a law making all semi-auto rifles Title II weapons, what would be the constitutional barrier to doing so?

The Constitution never gave it the authority to do so. It therefore cannot do so.

 

[Maccabee]

No. Only that it happened in 2013.

What?

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what you said. You said Congress can impose any law if it's necessary and proper to support a well regulated Militia. If Congress says that the makeup of the militia is just 20 men, and they are to be armed with swords, then they have no right to be armed with firearms.

If they can make all semiauto firearms class II, they can make all firearms class II, or simply ban them if banning them is "necessary and proper".

Are semiauto weapons in common use for lawful purposes?

Both of you have a twisted view of what the Constitution of the United States is.

The Federal government is formed by this document. It is given certain powers and authority by this document. It has no other power or authority than what is specifically spelled out in this document.

The Federal government is not given the authority to limit sales of guns, swords, knives, baseball bats, or any other personal arm. The 2nd amendment is not required because of that. It is there because the framers wanted to make clear that particular limitation of the Federal government. Article 1 Section 8, the 9th and 10th amendments also prohibit the Federal government from passing any such law limiting any kind of gun or personal weapon.

The 2nd amendment in particular mentions TWO rights, not one. There is no 'prefatory clause'. It does not grant any right. It clarifies the limited powers of the Federal government.

It is the inherent right of man to be able to defend himself. It is the inherent right of man to do so with whatever weapon he needs. The 2nd amendment does NOT grant this right. It acknowledges that right.
It also the inherent right of a State to defend itself. States do so by organizing militias. The Federal government does not organize militias. It organizes armies and navies.

The States OWN the Constitution, NOT the Federal government. The Federal government is merely an agent created by that Constitution. No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States or of any State. An agent created by a contract cannot modify that contract. Only the owners of that contract may do so.

 

[Maccabee]

That's easy; no more ARs and other such combat weapons.

So no 1911s, M1 carbines, Winchesters, M1 Garands, Remington 700s or 870s, Mossberg 590s or Colt Peacemakers? Instead we can have Ruger mini 14s with 30 round magazines?

 

[Rucker61]

Both of you have a twisted view of what the Constitution of the United States is.

The Federal government is formed by this document. It is given certain powers and authority by this document. It has no other power or authority than what is specifically spelled out in this document.

The federal government has no power or authority granted by the Constitution or Second Amendment to regulate firearms - it has, how, assumed the authority and the power through various actions of Congress and SCOTUS to have real, actual power and authority to regulate firearms. If you don't think so, feel free to parade in front of BATFE with an unregistered SBR.

 

[prometeus]

are you SERIOUSLY arguing that speaking is not an action?

Are we now talking parts of speech or freedom of speech?

pathetic is pretending that banning my ability to own something is the same as punishing ACTIONS that are intended to cause harm.

Have I ever advocated banning your ability to speak?

 

[TurtleDude]

The federal government has no power or authority granted by the Constitution or Second Amendment to regulate firearms - it has, how, assumed the authority and the power through various actions of Congress and SCOTUS to have real, actual power and authority to regulate firearms. If you don't think so, feel free to parade in front of BATFE with an unregistered SBR.

you all are both right which is why I always ask if the power is proper

it exists but is not proper

 

[TurtleDude]

Are we now talking parts of speech or freedom of speech?

Have I ever advocated banning your ability to speak?

a state law that punishes the inducing of panic by screaming FIRE in a theater where none exists, is akin to banning the discharge of a weapon in a crowded theater that is not justified by an emergency. Laws that restrict what sort of firearms you can own have no relationship to banning the yelling of fire when the yeller knows none exists

 

[vegas giants]

The Constitution never gave it the authority to do so. It therefore cannot do so.

Commerce clause....but you knew that

 

[prometeus]

a state law that punishes the inducing of panic by screaming FIRE in a theater where none exists, is akin to banning the discharge of a weapon in a crowded theater that is not justified by an emergency.

Is it? That would mean that it would be the same law that applies to such situations? Is it the same law?

Laws that restrict what sort of firearms you can own

How is that relevant to our discussion?

 

[prometeus]

That's easy; no more ARs and other such combat weapons.

ARs are not combat weapons. Ever been in the military?