I would like to see sec.57 and 59

While all of this information is relevant keep in mind that courts are the final arbiter when if comes to interpretation of our laws as provided in the constitution. Again, nothing is black and white.

Gotcha. Kind of like the Nuremberg Laws? The Fugitive Slave Act?

In the spirit of fuller disclosure of course.

And even the Supreme Court of the United States of America is made up of human beings, each with his or her own beliefs and each being the product of his or her own 'environment' in their formative years and today living close to those beliefs that may have been imposed upon them by parents or the society in which they lived or choose to live in today and continue to associate with..... These people, appointed to their positions, some of whom may be predisposed to be anti-gun (for reasons discussed above) are tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution so that it must be followed and adhered to by each and every American citizen...:shock:

Yup, I guess nothing is black and white...

And democracy truly is an imperfect system of government... but it's the best we have ever found and has been proven to be the most fair to all citizens.






.

A common misconception - however we are a republic not a democracy Which adds more grey

Which results in many rural areas -upstate New York or Northern California for example - being represented by people selected by high density urban populations, instead of someone who may closer reflect their views


An example of the impact is that nearly all the counties in NY oppose the "safe act". But the 5 bourghs of the NYC support it

Okay... we're a republic with a democratic form of government..... nit-picker:p






.

Slow day :rotf:

Go watch Fox News. That will get you all worked up.

As for me on this hot day, I'm just kicking back and waiting for delivery on the Cadillac that Joel Osteen says God has waiting for me.

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.

The People
 

Robin, Well said. Right On !

So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?

Yep, I do. These rights are extended to all the "people" that make up the religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations thereby the organizations have these same rights. Take away the people and they lose these rights.

Only insofar as the constitution specifically includes them... IMHO

They have no right to pretend the constitution protects them by attempting to identify themselves as individuals and claim protection under the Bill of Rights.

And I agree that without the "people" these entities are not protected.





.

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Regarding individual gun rights and the Second Amendment,

I think it does too, but it is not as clear a statement as some would believe or act like they believe and you have to go beyond the words of the amendment to reach that conclusion. Scalia thought so too and he wrote the landmark and narrow majority Heller decision with that in mind. He was perhaps the best friend gun owners could have. With him gone and more people turning against gun owners because of wacko shootings we lose public goodwill. Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like.

Because of these military style weapons the public turns against us and may fail to distinguish one gun from another. The AK and AR crowd tells us we must stand together, no wonder , they need the support now for the problems these weapons have created.

Think Heller was the right decision but I disagree with Citizens United. Unless corporations can be held to the same responsibilities as an individual they should not enjoy the same protections.

Good old David of David and Goliath fame was not in the military and not a law enforcement officer, he was a boy, a boy who had learned to use a rock and a sling (presumably with God's help) against bears and lions before he took down Goliath. David, an underage youth, possessed the lethal weaponry of the day for non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by David were not toy sling shots if they could kill large animals and Goliath. So the Bible speaks of God's people packing heat back in the day and God helped their aim be true.

If you are recalled to active duty with the U.S. Military you are not part of the "militia" ( a bit surprising to me that you would not know that). The standing active duty military is not the militia. The National Guard , which didn't exist until 1903, created by the Dick Act is not the militia.

This was addressed and clarified in 1982 by the Senate's Judiciary Committee, Sub-committee on the Constitution, in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."

The bottom line all the arms, the munitions, the armament and equipment of both the Active Duty Military and National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.

With regard to a standing military and the 2nd Amendment, here's the voice of a more obscure founding father.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, , August 17, 1789

Amazing what one can learn at this web site!

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), writing the majority opinion - wrote that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole.


In his opinion there is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.

honestly - to think these word smiths used the term "PEOPLE" in WE THE PEOPLE and 4 other amendments but meant something completely different in just the second amendment stretches credibility even for an activist judge

" Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like. " Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Also, united we stand, divided we fall. Some of us like Parkers, some pistols, some target rifles; but let us not disregard anyone's gun rights just because we don't play their game or like the way their gun looks. I never saw a AR jump up and shoot anyone all by itself.

We are in a public perception problem because of the support of some people for assault military style weapons, and now those people want everyone to support them.

No thanks. My old shotguns didn't cause the problem.

The solution is direct. If you feel that you must have one of these black guns for whatever reason , then work with the BATFE to create a subclass of weapons similar to the permitted fully automatic ones, where there are significant restrictions and fees for ownership. That system has so far been successful in keeping out the wackos. Maybe the NRA should spearhead that effort.

Once a mass shooting is committed by someone wielding a shotgun loaded up with buck shot and shooting people in close quarters those with an eye for gun control will look at us and our Parker shotguns. They won't care that ours are double barrels or antiques, they will be lumped in with all shotguns.

I believe the Germans hated the use of the Winchester M97 aka Trench gun, by the USMC in WWI they filed a diplomatic protest that it was an inhumane weapon of war. Kind of funny that came from the side who first used poison gas, but it showed how much they hated a Marine and his trench sweeper.

It was reported the M97 in slam fire mode with 00 buck would clear a trench faster than any of the full auto weapons of the time.

look ,They want them all!

Well Pete that's like the speeders saying to the non speeders to stand with them because speed limits will affect everybody.

Maybe some one person should take some time off and go to work for those wanting to disarm us and help write some new gun laws. This is absurd. First the AR's, then our pistols, then YOUR shotguns. The 2D Amendment says " not infringe". That isn't hard to understand. Or is it?

In the meantime, in case none of you noticed, the Islamic terrorists have been winning the war on terror. Oh the military has been fighting them in the style of the last war but the enemy has made great gains, much more so than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. We have expanded the size and reach of our government, placed greater restrictions and inconveniences on the population, our government spying on the general population without specific cause as never before, we have people afraid to talk to the police about suspicious activity of their neighbors or coworkers because of fear of being called a racists and possible action taken against them for it, and now we have not just the general public, but gun owners suggesting restrictions on ownership and carry of firearms in spite of the fact we lived with the Bill or Rights and the 2nd Amendment for 240 years. Our enemies have and are continuing to change our way of life, restricting our freedoms and many in this country go along with it willingly. Sad.

Your analogy is Red Herring and you know it, or at least you should. Driving on public roads is clearly a privilege granted by government. It is not an individual right defined and protected by the Constitution.

xxx

I just have a hard time imagining Hancock, Jefferson, et. reacting to the shootings that involved AR-type firearms, especially Newtown, and thinking an unrestricted right to own these weapons is exactly what we envisioned.

Well, this thread got me to thinking. In the past I've let a shotgun out of the safe, next to loaded shells. None of them have ever gotten up, loaded their self and went looking to shoot someone. So just to see, I took one of my AR's out of the safe and set it next to a loaded clip, and went back upstairs. I'll be damn. That butt ugly AR loaded the clip, racked a shell in the chamber, and was creeping up the stairs. Never again. Now I know, AR's are a problem.
What we envisioned back then was the citizen was the military and everyone had the same type of weapon. What was envisioned was that armed citizens would keep the government honest. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment - to keep the government honest - not to shoot SxS's, not to hunt or shoot clays, or paper targets. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves every time another gun law is enacted or ask for one to be enacted. Wake up and read some history.

It's not the gun, it's not the gun, it's not the gun...... it's the person using the gun!

To be making the distinction between a Parker and an AR is something a California elected official would try to sell. A gun is made up of common components, a tube to direct something, some kind of force to get an object to move down that tube and some type of projectile to travel at high speed in a chosen direction. To try to make a distinction between a "zip gun" made from a pipe, nail and a shell or an antique double gun or a "black" AR is foolish; a gun is a gun and some people want to take them ALL away. Don't encourage them to take the other guys, because your's will be next.

Rather than trying to make the distinction between an AR and a Parker, we would be better served to try to educate the ill informed that all guns shoot deadly projectiles and its not the gun that needs to be addressed but the actions of those using them. Push for harsh actions on anyone using a gun illegally and stand up for anyone using them for valid personal protection, hunting and target shooting.

A nut job recently flew a commercial airliner into a mountain side but I didn't hear anyone blame the aircraft. More people are killed each year by medical errors than guns but we don't hear a call to eliminate doctors or hospitals. Thousands are killed on our highways because of distracted drivers using cell phones but nobody calls for the elimination of cell phones. Pass all the laws you want, none of these problems will be resolved as a result. Take away all guns and there will still be murders; think Cane and Able.

They don't want to take all our guns to protect us, they want them all to protect themselves from "we the people" who can keep them from going even more over the edge and stop them from abusing the powers we grant them.

By the way, the cell phone issue could be solved and I have written officials and corporations on how to solve the problem, but for obvious monetary reasons, nothing will be done. Solution..... Cell phones have GPS devices built into them, so imagine all phones disabling their keypads if the phone is moving in excess of 10 MPH (except for 911). Distracted drives eliminated and hands free enforced; no texting possible. In the few years after everyone upgrades, problem solved.

It looks like the Mr. Gardner's unflagging regard for the Greater Wisdom of government courts and lawyers may have found a sympathetic ear:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/14...endment-rights

A secret court to relieve citizens of their Second Amendment Rights!!? And ALL without that bothersome "due process." Brilliant!

With all due respect to Fox News (cough, cough) I'd prefer to read the OpEd piece itself and drawing my own conclusions as to what it says. As for the premise of your statement, I'm not seeing anything where the government is actually doing that. Yes, there have been efforts to prevent those on the "no-fly" list from being able to purchase firearms (which seems like a no-brainer until you consider the issue of due process).

How about providing. Link to the OpEd piece to which Fox was referring?

It just makes me cringe when I see some members of what is probably the smallest firearms demographic there is, join sides with the antis to go after the largest firearm demographic in America.
The AR 15 is THE most popular rifle in America. The SxS, by comparison, would be statistically non-existent.
Sacrificing others rights to save your own is like feeding your friends to the alligators, hoping they eat you last.

Wonder how many of you have actually read the Heller decision. In Heller, Scalia went to great pains to limit the scope of the courts ruling. The court emphasized that the need for self-defense is “most acute” in the home, leaving open the possibility for a different standard in public. It also characterized handguns as the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” suggesting other guns might be regulated differently. Moreover, Scalia cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on certain “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” He listed a few, including prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and in “sensitive places.” Even the court’s relatively expansive list, Scalia explained, did “not purport to be exhaustive.” In McDonald, the court repeated Heller’s explicit limitations.

Maybe you to should quit wasting your time here and spend it more productively trying to get more gun laws pasted. I can hear HRC calling out to you now.

Don't make assumptions, Paul. As I said before if you can't debate both sides of an issue then you don't understand the issues. It's simple as that. Anyone who honestly believes the debate over the 2nd is ridiculous is very naive.

The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.

[QUOTE=Paul Harm;197182]The only assumption I made was thinking everyone here was pro gun. My mistake.[/QUOTE

So lifetime gun owners and hunters are not pro gun unless they agree with you?

Well hell , just take em out and shoot em because they have to be a Democrat !!