Safe Act Update, Pistol Permit Recertification Deadline Approaching !

[GOPerfect]

That's very vague so I'm not getting where you actually stand in regards to militia but if you read the Declaration of Independence, it clearly says that when the standing government gets tyrannical, the people have to have a means to abolish it.

Then shortly after a war was fought by the people in militias against the current standing army. Those people were equipped with the same weaponry as the standing army.

They won and the Bill of Rights was written with the 2A included to preserve the right for the people to do it again.

That includes, full auto, grenades, ect.

I think that's what you mean.

What I am getting at is simple. There are too many that think they know what they are talking about, many have feelings, but deep down inside, they have no idea what they are talking about.

The line in red is important... The individual Militiamen did not have all of the same weapons as the standing Army. This is a misconception. This is where, many times we lose. There were many weapons of war that the Armies had that the common man did not. This is the reason our Courts have ruled so many times against certain types of weapons for the everyday citizen.

When gun laws are argued against, the people fighting them need to use the words of the FF's spoke. Everything we need to know and understand about the Bill of Rights is in the writings of them.

 

[Robin]

Comma or not be Intellectual honest and quote the entire 2A not just the part you like!

Intellectually honest, about a comma(,), really? My comment was about the comma(,), don't be pesky!
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

What I am getting at is simple. There are too many that think they know what they are talking about, many have feelings, but deep down inside, they have no idea what they are talking about.

The line in red is important... The individual Militiamen did not have all of the same weapons as the standing Army. This is a misconception. This is where, many times we lose. There were many weapons of war that the Armies had that the common man did not. This is the reason our Courts have ruled so many times against certain types of weapons for the everyday citizen.

When gun laws are argued against, the people fighting them need to use the words of the FF's spoke. Everything we need to know and understand about the Bill of Rights is in the writings of them.

I don't know. From all the literature I've read, the common man had at the time, muskets, swords, crude grenades, ect.

Those that were well off even had cannon and ships equipped with cannon.

 

[soylentBlue]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Imagine the text read:
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

 

[Marine Cpl]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Imagine the text read:
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

Bingo.

 

[Bananabandit]

So hows those recerts coming along? getting em filled out nice and neat?

 

[Darth]

That's actually incorrect. Those 2 dudes got it wrong.

The militia is compromised of the people with their own weapons so in order for the people to keep the security of their state free, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that they can form up into a militia.

Which is exactly, nearly word for word, what they said.

Where did their definition suffer from that?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Which is exactly, nearly word for word, what they said.

Where did their definition suffer from that?

No. They said that the people have the right to keep and bear arms against the militia. Incorrect. The people are the militia.

 

[Darth]

No. They said that the people have the right to keep and bear arms against the militia. Incorrect. The people are the militia.

Actually, they said the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, should they need to take arms against a radical state militia again, like they just did kicking the redcoats out in the first place.

It's says nothing of the rights of the militia, or who it I is comprised of.

 

[Bananabandit]

No, you guys go on.

Ill wait. Until February 1st.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Actually, they said the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, should they need to take arms against a radical state militia again, like they just did kicking the redcoats out in the first place.

It's says nothing of the rights of the militia, or who it I is comprised of.

Forget it. You aren't getting it. Listen to the video again. The people are the militia.

 

[Darth]

Forget it. You aren't getting it. Listen to the video again. The people are the militia.

Here is the text.

"Read the words,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Sure. You need an organized military force to defend your country, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the People in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says the right of the people.

Now why the word People, because the people that wrote this had just fought a war for two years, against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again, so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.

Now gun control advocates will say the phrasing is clumsy and the comma, separating the state from the people is just a.. pause to get your breath. Strange they can't they can't seem to point out any other places where those hack framers ****ED UP the wording."

Pretty simple. Nothing said of the rights of the militia. Nothing said of what makes up the militia. Says clearly "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Marine Cpl]

Here is the text.

"Read the words,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Sure. You need an organized military force to defend your country, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the People in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says the right of the people.

Now why the word People, because the people that wrote this had just fought a war for two years, against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again, so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.

Now gun control advocates will say the phrasing is clumsy and the comma, separating the state from the people is just a.. pause to get your breath. Strange they can't they can't seem to point out any other places where those hack framers ****ED UP the wording."

Pretty simple. Nothing said of the rights of the militia. Nothing said of what makes up the militia. Says clearly "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

You still do not understand that the people are the militia? If you can't understand that then you will remain thinking what those guys said is correct.

 

[nortatoga]

I had to get ready for work yesterday and could not reply any more, But I was able to do some more research! I suggest you google History of concealed carry of firearms!

The History of Concealed Carry in the United States - USA Carry

And there are many more! @Willjr75 you want to keep saying Charles Nichols is a crack pot! Do the research! 5 States do not allow open carry, these States are violating the 2A ! 45 States allow open carry, 12 require a license ( They may be violating the 2A) A State that allows open carry but requires a license to conceal carry is not violating the 2A because you can still carry openly! As I said earlier The Right to Bear Arms not the Right to Conceal Arms!

And just for the record I don't want to open carry! I'll keep my unrestricted CCW!

Do the research!

 

[Marine Cpl]

I had to get ready for work yesterday and could not reply any more, But I was able to do some more research! I suggest you google History of concealed carry of firearms!

The History of Concealed Carry in the United States - USA Carry

And there are many more! @Willjr75 you want to keep saying Charles Nichols is a crack pot! Do the research! 5 States do not allow open carry, these States are violating the 2A ! 45 States allow open carry, 12 require a license ( They may be violating the 2A) A State that allows open carry but requires a license to conceal carry is not violating the 2A because you can still carry openly! As I said earlier The Right to Bear Arms not the Right to Conceal Arms!

And just for the record I don't want to open carry! I'll keep my unrestricted CCW!

Do the research!

This is getting tiring responding to this. The 2A makes no mention of methods of carrying. It just says that your right to bear shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right to bear openly or concealed.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand or don't want to understand that common law or practice or whatever you want to call it before or after the time the Bill of Rights was written mean absolutely nothing. You have to go by what it says in its current text. If they infringed before the 2A was written, the 2A remedied those infringements. If they infringed after the 2A was written, it is unconstitutional.

Your own article that you quoted says that concealed carry was banned in the early 1800's in some states. When was the 2A written? Regardless like I said earlier, you have to go by the text and only the text.

Under your logic, the 2A is meaningless since they didn't have a 2A before the 2A was written and it was common practice to restrict guns.

Also under your logic, because states banned concealed carry in the 1800's then now we can ban open or concealed carry or rifles or shotguns in the 2000's then right? Or would that be illegal to do now 240 years after the 2A was written compared to 20 years after the 2A was written in your book?

You have to go only by what is written. Period. Infringements before or after it was written make no matter.

If they pass laws rescinding the machine gun ban does that make it invalid because it wasn't common law or practice before?

How about if they ban semi auto. Does that make it invalid because it wasn't common law or practice before?

 

[nortatoga]

This is getting tiring responding to this. The 2A makes no mention of methods of carrying. It just says that your right to bear shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right to bear openly or concealed.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand or don't want to understand that common law or practice or whatever you want to call it before or after the time the Bill of Rights was written mean absolutely nothing. You have to go by what it says in its current text. If they infringed before the 2A was written, the 2A remedied those infringements. If they infringed after the 2A was written, it is unconstitutional.

Your own article that you quoted says that concealed carry was banned in the early 1800's in some states. When was the 2A written? Regardless like I said earlier, you have to go by the text and only the text.

Under your logic, the 2A is meaningless since they didn't have a 2A before the 2A was written and it was common practice to restrict guns.

Also under your logic, because states banned concealed carry in the 1800's then now we can ban open or concealed carry or rifles or shotguns in the 2000's then right? Or would that be illegal to do now 240 years after the 2A was written compared to 20 years after the 2A was written in your book?

You have to go only by what is written. Period. Infringements before or after it was written make no matter.

If they pass laws rescinding the machine gun ban does that make it invalid because or wasn't common law or practice before?

How about if they can semi auto. Does that make it invalid because it wasn't common law or practice before?

Try staying on topic!

What you don't see is that they were upheld because you could still open carry! No Infringement that would have to be banning all carry!

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Marine Cpl]

Try staying on topic!

What you don't see is that they were upheld because you could still open carry! No Infringement that would have to be banning all carry!

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia

That was a corrupt decision being that the 2A doesn't say which method of carry is protected. That's like saying that your 2A rights aren't being violated if they ban semi automatic because you can have a bolt action or your 2A rights aren't violated if they ban anything above a .25 ACP because you can have that .25 ACP. Or if they say they aren't violated because they allow you to carry a single shot .25 ACP.

All those are infringements. Infringements are when they don't allow you to do something rather than allowing you an alternative. You don't want the alternative so you are being infringed against.

 

[nortatoga]

That was a corrupt decision being that the 2A doesn't say which method of carry is protected. That's like saying that your 2A rights aren't being violated if they ban semi automatic because you can have a bolt action or your 2A rights aren't violated if they ban anything above a .25 ACP because you can have that .25 ACP.

Again stay on topic, that would be another case!

The accepted method of carry had always been open and concealed was not, all the way though the mid 1900's by the people and the courts!
Find me some links even one that proves that to be wrong!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again stay on topic, that would be another case!

The accepted method of carry had always been open and concealed was not, all the way though the mid 1900's by the people and the courts!
Find me some links even one that proves that to be wrong!

Forget it. You either don't have the ability to open your mind and read what I posted debunking what you just said and keep saying or you are deliberately being obtuse because you don't want to lose an internet discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[nortatoga]

Forget it. You either don't have the ability to open your mind and read what I posted debunking what you just said and keep saying or you are deliberately being obtuse because you don't want to lose an internet discussion. Have a nice day.

Here"s another for you! Still wait for your proof not your opinion!


Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

 

[Marine Cpl]

Here"s another for you! Still wait for your proof not your opinion!


Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

What part of corrupt court decisions don't you understand? 2 days from now you'll quote another case ruled be an enemy of the Constitution.

If they rule tomorrow that you don't have any right whatsoever to carry an arm in any fashion, will you quote that decision too?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

The court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t specifically state or guarantee the right to a concealed firearm, but to firearm itself.

If that isn't a corrupt than what is? It says keep and BEAR!

 

[nortatoga]

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

The court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t specifically state or guarantee the right to a concealed firearm, but to firearm itself.

If that isn't a corrupt than what is? It says keep and BEAR!

Again find facts not your opinion!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Again find facts not your opinion!

Isn't that what that is? A judge's biased opinion? Or is it fact and does it say that carry isn't in the 2A? If the 2A says that it's only for the firearm itself, can you please point that out to me.

Your problem is that you take judge's opinions as fact.

 

[GOPerfect]

Isn't that what that is? A judge's biased opinion? Or is it fact and does it say that carry isn't in the 2A? If the 2A says that it's only for the firearm itself, can you please point that out to me.

Your problem is that you take judge's opinions as fact.

Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?

I started a new thread to discuss this. This thread has gotten muddled.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?

I started a new thread to discuss this. This thread has gotten muddled.

As long as I'm not called a cop hater, I'm game. Lol.

 

[Robin]

Your a cop hater, turn in your jersey!
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm also a judge hater and a Lawyer hater.

 

[Robin]

No soup for you!
Robin

 

[masterswimmer]

Anybody here that plans on submitting but still waiting till the 11th hour and 59th minute? We're getting there quick now.

Oh did I mention FUAC!