Justice Sotomayor car jacking
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
And because of my position of non privilege I should be able to have weapons to defend myself same as she has based off her position of wealth and prestige. So she can suck a fatty hawk tu style trying to say she’s deserves it and I don’t. Seems fair
We completely concur on the subject of slavery.
What I’m pointing out is that the Taney court, in denying Scot the rights of a U.S. citizen, detailed those rights in a manner that inescapably mirrors their presence in the Bill of Rights, and makes no connection between the right of the people to keep and the bear arms and service in the militia.
Do you have another case, perhaps closer to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, to suggest an understanding of those rights at odds with the Supreme Court?
Read more:
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol7/iss2/3/
You definitely did no research.
Why We Can't Ignore the "Militia" Clause of the Second Amendment | Mises Institute
The Second Amendment is much more than a guarantee of private gun ownership. It was designed to decentralize and weaken the military establishment in the United
You definitely did no research.
Why We Can't Ignore the "Militia" Clause of the Second Amendment | Mises Institute
The Second Amendment is much more than a guarantee of private gun ownership. It was designed to decentralize and weaken the military establishment in the Unitedmises.org
I am 100% certain I have done far more honest searching for information than you. In fact, I am relatively certain you have done nothing more than search for opinion pieces that support your views. Which, btw, is not research.
Can you provide any contemporary accounts to support your view that the 2nd amendment doesn’t protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms?
Because I’ve already seen the ones that assert it does, and you’re apparently ignoring them because they don’t support your views.
Not owning a rifle in revolutionary times would be like not owning a smart phone today.
(Via law.georgetown.edu) In 1776, Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt a formal guarantee that was a precursor of the Second Amendment: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state . . . .” In 1780, it became the first state to pass an act for the abolition of slavery. And in 1787, Pennsylvania ratified the federal Constitution, with a strong minority in the ratifying convention demanding a bill of rights, including the right to bear arms.
The state’s 1776 constitutional convention was presided over by Benjamin Franklin,
who stated “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
The author of the Massachusetts Declaration was John Adams, who had argued at the Boston Massacre trial in 1770, defending the soldiers, that “Self Defence [is] the primary Canon of the Law of Nature,” and that “the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves . . . for their defence, not for offence.”
Samuel Adams proposed in the Massachusetts ratification convention in 1788 “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress, to infringe the just liberty of the press, . . . or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
(George Mason) “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
And since you’re so intellectually lazy and dishonest in claiming the concept of gun ownership for self defense didn’t exist amongst the ‘founding fathers’, here’s a link that’s lighter reading than the Georgetown law review.
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association
Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves. If you know of a gun quotation from a Founding Father not listed here, send it to us. (But make SURE it's not already listed. Okay?) Back to the...
Today, it means city, county and state police forces.
Which did not exist in the 1700s. And that Amendment refers to the times when ONLY the King's forces were able to have weapons. Which is how kings exacted their control and authority over the population.
More than likely, because we have very few regulations on ownership in this country.
Therein lies the problem.
So, not "defunding".
Just "no one wants to be a policeman in a country awash with weapons".
No; it's not.
It's about increasing the accountability and getting rid of racist and abusive officers.
(Via law.georgetown.edu) In 1776, Pennsylvania became the first state to adopt a formal guarantee that was a precursor of the Second Amendment: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state . . . .” In 1780, it became the first state to pass an act for the abolition of slavery. And in 1787, Pennsylvania ratified the federal Constitution, with a strong minority in the ratifying convention demanding a bill of rights, including the right to bear arms.
The state’s 1776 constitutional convention was presided over by Benjamin Franklin,
who stated “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
The author of the Massachusetts Declaration was John Adams, who had argued at the Boston Massacre trial in 1770, defending the soldiers, that “Self Defence [is] the primary Canon of the Law of Nature,” and that “the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves . . . for their defence, not for offence.”
Samuel Adams proposed in the Massachusetts ratification convention in 1788 “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress, to infringe the just liberty of the press, . . . or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
(George Mason) “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
And since you’re so intellectually lazy and dishonest in claiming the concept of gun ownership for self defense didn’t exist amongst the ‘founding fathers’, here’s a link that’s lighter reading than the Georgetown law review.
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association
Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves. If you know of a gun quotation from a Founding Father not listed here, send it to us. (But make SURE it's not already listed. Okay?) Back to the...www.buckeyefirearms.org
We can Google looking for multiple quotes all day. But what I have found is that the foundation and reasoning is difficult to pin down. And as a matter of objective fact the SCOTUS has seldom addressed it.
This, of course, if you are genuinely curious and so look at scholars have to say rather than searching the Internet for anything that supports your preconceived ideas.
Wallow in ignorance if you choose, but the writings and scholars the founding fathers based their own philosophys on go back hundreds of years before the War against England.
Their distrust of standing armies and the right to self defense is all their in black and white.
Stay ignorant, lib.
‘We’ can?
Where are yours?
Because there was no controversy about what it meant. That came over a century later.
I’ve given you proof the Supreme Court saw the ‘right of the people’ to keep and bear arms was a ‘right of the people’ like freedom of speech and assembly.
From your research you know that the second amendment was an amalgam of three separate requests (multiple states sent the requests, Madison organized and consolidated them).
Affirmation of the militia principle over standing armies, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and an exception to participation in the militia for the ‘religiously scrupulous’ (Quakers, etc).
Concern that a future Congress may try to pervert the language of the amendment to declare who is ‘religiously scrupulous’ as justification to deny them the right to keep and bear arms led to the clause being struck to avoid the exact confusion you’re trying to further.
The preconceived bias is yours, because you’ve provided no evidence to support your position. In fact, you have to ignore the existing evidence to hold onto your preconceived idea.
Again, you are simply being simplistic. There was little discussion at the time regarding gun ownership, because guns were common and the Founding Fathers seemed to view it as something outside the domain of the federal government; gun regulation would be part of the states' jobs. They did, however, argue a great deal about whether or not to have a standing army, about the ability of states to create militias for protection against an over-zealous federal government, and about the requirements of individuals to serve in a militia. The first draft of the second amendment included a clause allowing for conscientious objectors, but that was removed.
I have no preconceived ideas on the subject - you are making that up possibly because the concept is foreign to you. The fact that you use Dred Scott to support your views demonstrates that.
I have looked for historical and scholarly discussions on the subject, and found nothing definitive. Here is an example:
Naturally, this does not fit neatly into a HORT discussion. I am comfortable knowing that I have made, and continue to make, an honest attempt at understanding the second amendment.
Last edited:
Literally why the US has an army that cannot legally operate within the US borders against US citizens; state operated National Guard units are for civil unrest, etc.
Also why the 2A enables the establishment of local, county and state police forces, which the federal government has no authority or control over, which serve the function of "militias" of the 1700s.
You didn’t read the links I provided. Not surprising.
The founding fathers viewed ‘organized’ militias with the same disdain as a standing army; some even thought them worse.
So show us the ‘little’ that you’ve found to support the notion that the 2nd amendment didn’t protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
So far you’ve shown nothing.
Why was the conscientious objector clause removed?
Because there was fear expressed that a future Congress may pervert the intent of the clause, and instead try to declare who was ‘religiously scrupulous’ and thereby deny them not simply a spot in the militia, but the right to keep and bear arms.
To foreclose even the possibility of that perversion of the clause it was removed.
In your research you’ve read from the debates, right?
Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
Now some try and use the militia clause to the exact same end.
I use Dred Scot to point out the Supreme Court understood the ‘rights of the people’ included the right to keep and bear arms, with no assertion of requisite militia service to enjoy the right.
You’re being disingenuous to ignore that.
And you’re smart enough to know it.
Do you think that guy’s master’s thesis actually presents a balanced look at the issue?
WTF?
The second Amendment literally says a well-regulated militia as necessary to the security of a state.
As we have seen, in practice Founding-era militias were far from universal, but in the Founders’ conceptual framework the militia consisted of the mass of ordinary citizens, trained to arms and available to serve at the call of the state. As George Mason put it: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except [for] a few public officers. ... When the Second Congress sought to exercise its constitutional authority to “provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia,” it directed “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states [except for persons exempted under state law and certain other exempted classes] ... who is ... of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years” to enroll in the militia of their states. Or as Patrick Henry declared at the Virginia ratifying convention: “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
The Founders’ did have a concept that approximates today’s National Guard — but it was a concept they disapproved. This is the “select militia” — a specially trained part of the citizenry. To the Founders, a select militia was little better than an army. The Philadelphia Convention explicitly rejected a proposal to create a “select militia” for the federal government, as did the Third Congress. The Constitution’s proponents, moreover, repeatedly denied Anti-Federalist charges that Congress’ power to “provide for training” the militia would lead to creation of a select militia.
(legal historian David Yassky; from links provided).
The Founders’ did have a concept that approximates today’s National Guard — but it was a concept they disapproved. This is the “select militia” — a specially trained part of the citizenry. To the Founders, a select militia was little better than an army. The Philadelphia Convention explicitly rejected a proposal to create a “select militia” for the federal government, as did the Third Congress. The Constitution’s proponents, moreover, repeatedly denied Anti-Federalist charges that Congress’ power to “provide for training” the militia would lead to creation of a select militia.
(legal historian David Yassky; from links provided).
No; they did not. They actually referred to "well-regulated" militias in the 2nd Amendment.
Op Eds written by idiots don't alter this simple fact.
David S. Yassky is an American lawyer and politician. He was a member of the New York City Council from 2002 until 2009, the chairperson of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, and the Dean of Pace University School of Law from April 2014 to April 2018.
MK: Duped, again.
Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:
"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."
Founders quotes
The only thing that triggers these people more than guns is the attitude the founders HAD about guns.
The only thing that triggers these people more than guns is the attitude the founders HAD about guns.
Remember that part about "well regulated" in the Amendment?
You seem to be missing that point, entirely.
Plus, these were muskets, which required a fair amount of skill to prep and load. Which means they had FAR MORE training requirements than we've imposed today - those are virtually non-existent today.
Comical how the guy who dismisses, out of hand, anything that’s not a peer-reviewed, RCT conducted by university sponsored PhD’s thinks he can cancel out hundreds of years of Natural Law with an emotional YouTube video. 🤷♂️
