T1B

Besides I thought if you belonged to a militia nowadays you were branded a racist and the FBI would shoot your wife and kid and stuff.

You had to give TVO an opening, didn't you?

Stand by for another 13500 pages of how the Pentagon wasn't really hit by an airliner

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

Well I reckon if you're going to suggest that the 2nd Amendment exists solely to recognize the state's right to raise and arm a militia ..... suggesting that D.C. isn't a state and therefore isn't covered isn't that much of a leap.

I'm money like Vinny Gambini ....

Jsc810 wrote:While I don't agree with her, her dissent is in good faith.

She says that one part of the constitution reserves the right of the militia to the states, and that the Second Amendment confers the right of the state militia to arms. She does not make this up out of thin air, but bases it on other appellate court decisions, such as:

United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976)
(“The Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear Arms’ applies
only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the
individual’s right to bear arms . . . .” ); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 923 (1st Cir. 1942) (“There is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career.”)

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf

Which is exactly how the 2nd should have been interpreted. Someone should enroll that appellate court in a RIF program.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:While I don't agree with her, her dissent is in good faith.

She says that one part of the constitution reserves the right of the militia to the states, and that the Second Amendment confers the right of the state militia to arms. She does not make this up out of thin air, but bases it on other appellate court decisions, such as:

United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976)
(“The Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear Arms’ applies
only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the
individual’s right to bear arms . . . .” ); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 923 (1st Cir. 1942) (“There is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career.”)

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf

Which is exactly how the 2nd should have been interpreted. Someone should enroll that appellate court in a RIF program.

I honestly do not think an objective person could find fault with the conclusions reached by the majority in this case. They went to great lengths to examine every position. The idea that the Second Amendment only confers rights to States and their militia's is absurd. The Second Amendment confers "the People" with the right to keep and bear arms. If a majority of "the People" do not like that result, they can amend the Constitution to take away this right. Otherwise, they should STFU.

Then why do you think the words "well regulated Militia" was included, especially the "well regulated" part?

I honestly do not think an objective person could find fault with the conclusions reached by the majority in this case. They went to great lengths to examine every position. The idea that the Second Amendment only confers rights to States and their militia's is absurd. The Second Amendment confers "the People" with the right to keep and bear arms. If a majority of "the People" do not like that result, they can amend the Constitution to take away this right. Otherwise, they should STFU.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree with Diego on a political topic. I have always interpreted the 2nd ammendment to refer to the right of a state to form and arm a militia. Last time I checked, "militias" were made up of more than one person.

I think it's the other way around, 88. I think the 2nd Ammendment should be updated to specify that individuals have the right to be armed. Right now, I just don't read it that way. But I also don't think that everyone has a right to be armed, just as I don't feel that everyone has the right to drive a car...though most states treat the latter like some sort of inalienable right. I think that at a minimum a person should have to attend a one-hour gun safety class and pass a minimum competency test before they are sold any type of firearm. I mean seriously, you have to show that you can safely operate a vehicle to a certified DMV representative and must pass a written test in order to drive a car, and not only don't have to take a written test, but only have to pass a minimal background check(if they even bother) to buy a gun? Are you kidding me? That makes zero sense.

For those of you that believe we all (non-felons) have the right to be armed in this country, no matter what, save it. There is no rationale for arming those who can't answer basic questions about gun safety around kids or are so dim-witted that they can't pass a minimum competency exam. Arming the stupid is, well...stupid.

I said it first. Even though I don't agree with that interpretation.


Sincerely.
Chopped Liver in VA




:cry:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Which is exactly how the 2nd should have been interpreted. Someone should enroll that appellate court in a RIF program.

I honestly do not think an objective person could find fault with the conclusions reached by the majority in this case. They went to great lengths to examine every position. The idea that the Second Amendment only confers rights to States and their militia's is absurd. The Second Amendment confers "the People" with the right to keep and bear arms. If a majority of "the People" do not like that result, they can amend the Constitution to take away this right. Otherwise, they should STFU.

Then why do you think the words "well regulated Militia" was included, especially the "well regulated" part?

there is only one way to interprete 'the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed, fucknuts.

jesus christ you want to totally ignore something right there in black and white. yes, you are a tard.

titlover wrote:there is only one way to interprete 'the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed, fucknuts.

jesus christ you want to totally ignore something right there in black and white. yes, you are a tard.

The way that you're interpreting it completely ignores the intent of the framers of the constitution. There's only one way to interpret "A well regulated militia", fucknuts.

In fact, the original proposed language of the second ammendment was this:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It was then trimmed down to this the next day:

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."