|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
|
good post batlord 
so i read the synopsis and it does sound interesting, however i think it's a dead end tbh. this is just based on an exchange i was reading on people commenting on this author.
Quote:
It seems the newest mantra of the Gun Control Zealots is that the 2A is/was misinterpreted by the Heller decision, and somehow overturned some 200+ years of precedent. Somehow, it is all about a militia, and nothing to do with arms. Yet, when asked, not a single person, some claiming to be Constitutional scholars, have ever managed to cite the Supreme Court precedent, or the writings and/or quotes of any of the founders who claimed such a silly thing. The fact is, as can be seen by the Dred Scott decision, the 2A has ALWAYS been thought of as an individual right.
From DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 393 (How.)
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
So, if anyone can name the court case, or the writing of a founder who claimed that arms were only for the militia, please, post it.
|
Quote:
Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights
DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:
· U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.
· Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);
· State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);
· Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");
|
Quote:
It's called "whistling past the graveyard".
The "collective right" model has been debunked and appropriately trashed. Progressives simply reject the tenet that all things (families, communities, states and countries) begin with the individual. It is the individual in which all rights and powers reside. Communities, states and countries only have the power delegated to them by individuals to use in their behalf. Progressives reject that self-evident truth because it is an immovable obstruction to their view of governments doing what they believe is best for the people, whether the people agree with it or not.
|
it doesn't make sense to have a fundamental inalienable right only apply to people who are part of a militia. the fact that it's in the bill of rights makes it pretty clear that it is a right that applies to american citizens in general, imo. it would be very silly for them to put as the 2nd ****ing thing on the list something that only applies to certain clubs.
Last edited by John Wilkes Booth; 11-01-2015 at 10:30 PM.
|