Marxist Black Lives Matter

#3,252
#3,252
luthervol said:
Which are the people.
Click to expand...


.. and the right of “ The People “ to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED UPON . They are one in the same you just said it . The militia and the people ( during the time of its writing) were the same . That comma still giving lawyers fits to this day .
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,257
#3,257
0nelilreb said:
.. and the right of “ The People “ to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED UPON . They are one in the same you just said it . The militia and the people ( during the time of its writing) were the same . That comma still giving lawyers fits to this day .
Click to expand...
Which must mean that being well regulated does not constitute infringement.
 
#3,259
#3,259
luthervol said:
LOL.....a 5 / 4 split. Certainly seems infallible.
The dissenting arguments seem far more rational and reasonable.
Click to expand...
If you stand on your head and look out your back pockets, maybe. Doubt you can do both at the same time though.

I'm sure you believe that the District of Columbia had every right to keep Heller from owning a firearm in the confines of his own home.

"Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused."
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#3,264
#3,264
luthervol said:
LOL.....a 5 / 4 split. Certainly seems infallible.
The dissenting arguments seem far more rational and reasonable.
Click to expand...

The dissenters got their arses kicked. Just some examples:

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase "bear arms" was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12-13, n. 9; Linguists' Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study's collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase "bear arms against," which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as " 'bear arms ... for the purpose of killing game' " because those uses are "expressly qualified." Linguists' Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.

The final section of the brief recognized that "some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property," and launched an alternative argument that "weapons which are commonly used by criminals," such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. See id., at 18-21. The Government's Miller brief thus provided scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment--and the Court was presented with no counterdiscussion. As for the text of the Court's opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178-182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#3,268
#3,268
0nelilreb said:
Which actually means the people’s right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon since the people and the militia are one in the same . 😊
Click to expand...
Quite the circle. The militia and the people are one in the same and the militia (people) is to be well regulated, so the people (militia) are to be well regulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k-town_king and Purple Tiger
#3,271
#3,271
mrz072220dAPR20200722044509.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM and marcusluvsvols
#3,272
#3,272
luthervol said:
Quite the circle. The militia and the people are one in the same and the militia (people) is to be well regulated, so the people (militia) are to be well regulated.
Click to expand...

There’s no circle . It clearly states a well regulated militia being necessary for the safety of the state ( this is specify talking about how the militia should be organized. ) you are assuming regulated means restricted to certain weapons and their availability to all people . The problem you and all the gun grabber attorneys have is that the FF stopped there after telling us this and put in a comma before saying the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be .. well you know the rest . Common sense would tell anyone that the FF would be stupid to restrict arms ownership from people knowing they could possibly need them again before that document had time to be circulated around the country .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top