PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues "the right of the people to keep and bear (nuclear) Arms, shall not be infringed"?


jAZ
08-31-2009, 06:49 PM
"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."

I thought it was interesting that my comments in the "Gun Confiscation" thread. I made the point that even the strongest 2nd amendment defenders readily accept bans on certain arms because as we as a nation have developed more powerful firearms, such bans on certain arms have become a pragmatic necessity.

Where do you stand?

(poll pending)

***SPRAYER
08-31-2009, 06:50 PM
[CENTER][I]"
Where do you stand?



Directly behind the gun site.

KC Dan
08-31-2009, 07:52 PM
"Where do you stand?"

Ridiculous poll. Though on 9/12, I'll be standing in a gun show in Centralia, Washington exercizing my 2nd Amendment rights.

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:13 PM
It was a halfwitted, meaningless point in the other thread, now an even dumber poll. Jesus Christ you gun grabbers suck.

banyon
08-31-2009, 08:22 PM
As Scalia noted in Heller, the right applies to the tyype of arms that are kept in the regular course of milita duty, otherwise the first part of the Amendment is meaningless.

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:23 PM
As Scalia noted in Heller, the right applies to the tyype of arms that are kept in the regular course of milita duty, otherwise the first part of the Amendment is meaningless.

Thank you.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 08:23 PM
It was a halfwitted, meaningless point in the other thread, now an even dumber poll. Jesus Christ you gun grabbers suck.

I take it you do see a distinction between some arms and others, no?

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:24 PM
I take it you do see a distinction between some arms and others, no?

Do a little research on the topic. You're like a child who has wandered into a movie.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 08:24 PM
... the type of arms that are kept in the regular course of milita duty...

What are those?

banyon
08-31-2009, 08:26 PM
Thank you.

Nevertheless, two people who often vaguely (and rarely specifically) cite the Constitution regularly voted "yes" in this poll.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 08:26 PM
Do a little research on the topic. You're like a child who has wandered into a movie.

It's amazing how much substance banyon contributed to the topic in 1/3 the number of words you used to say nothing.

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:27 PM
It's amazing how much substance banyon contributed to the topic in 1/3 the number of words you used to say nothing.

I don't feel the need to edify you on elementary points. I'd rather just scoff at your dimwittedness.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 08:32 PM
I don't feel the need to edify you on elementary points. I'd rather just scoff at your dimwittedness.

Yes, clearly this was an elementary point that goes way back to Scalia's writings on Heller in 2008.

banyon
08-31-2009, 08:37 PM
What are those?

rifles, handguns. Here is the cite from Heller:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only thoseweapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean thatthe National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men wereexpected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool ofmen bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawfulpurposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamenand weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
.
53 Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
Opinion of the Court
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to sayonly that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizensfor lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of thescope of the right, see Part III, infra.2...


Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgmentof the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right..

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

jAZ
08-31-2009, 08:52 PM
rifles, handguns. Here is the cite from Heller:

.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

So was that clause not clarified in that way until 2008?

petegz28
08-31-2009, 08:54 PM
stupid thread..

banyon
08-31-2009, 09:03 PM
So was that clause not clarified in that way until 2008?

The US v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) court addressed the question with regard to federal law and sawed off shotguns, but Heller is certainly the first to incorporate the language to apply to states and also to spell it out in quite so much detail.

RNR
08-31-2009, 09:17 PM
:rolleyes:

wild1
08-31-2009, 09:23 PM
douche

Iowanian
08-31-2009, 09:47 PM
I stand in the front of the line that says you're an effing Dbag and have been exposing yourself as so for almost a decade.


This thread makes me want a .50 cal, just to have one.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:53 PM
I took the nuclear option, i mean what red blooded American wouldn't want a small tactical nuclear device?

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 09:59 PM
I take it you do see a distinction between some arms and others, no?

You don't?

Bwana
08-31-2009, 10:04 PM
You are a fuking retard. :shake:

jAZ
08-31-2009, 10:07 PM
You don't?
.
...we as a nation have developed more powerful firearms, such bans on certain arms have become a pragmatic necessity.

jAZ
09-01-2009, 08:30 AM
I think says a lot about about the sad level of the "discussion" around here, that it's unacceptable to the point of ridicule to raise an absolutely reasonable point that was so reasonable that Scalia apparently made the identical point in a historic ruling just one year ago.

Donger
09-01-2009, 08:33 AM
This thread has the same odor as jAZ' "You Republicans Might Be Socialist" thread.

***SPRAYER
09-01-2009, 08:33 AM
I think says a lot about about the sad level of the "discussion" around here, that it's unacceptable to the point of ridicule to raise an absolutely reasonable point that was so reasonable that Scalia apparently made the identical point in a historic ruling just one year ago.

I think it says alot about people like yourself who will engage in any amount of BS to try and confiscate guns and violate the 2nd Amendment rights of your fellow Americans.

But keep pushing moonbat. Take a look what happened to Rosa Luxemberg and all the other German commies that tried the same crap.

Donger
09-01-2009, 08:34 AM
jAZ, do you support H.R. 45?

Velvet_Jones
09-01-2009, 08:50 AM
Has anyone noticed that jAZ is getting stupider with every post since his messiah got elected? He is turning into a bigger clown than he already was. Equating a gun to a nuke. How stupid is that?

jAZ
09-01-2009, 09:16 AM
jAZ, do you support H.R. 45?

No, and I'm not a "gun grabber" either. But that's just going to confuse those who don't care much for actual discussion.