"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
I'm always amazed that a lawyer can change the meaning of something as simple as the second amendment. It is the right of the people. All arms are covered, and you can't infringe upon the right. If any of that is changed, the law is unconstitutional, whether or not you agree with it.
My old boss lived in Queens, he had to fill out a firearms form every year and tell NYC what guns he had, why head them and had to pay a yearly fee for each one! I hope NYC loses big time and has to return all those fees!
I'm always amazed that a lawyer can change the meaning of something as simple as the second amendment. It is the right of the people. All arms are covered, and you can't infringe upon the right. If any of that is changed, the law is unconstitutional, whether or not you agree with it.
I think one of the big problems in all this is that the Founders did not have the same mindset as we all have in regards as to what "militia" meant. Both sides in all this can take the Founders' own words and give it different interpretations. Mind you, before I go on, I want to say that I believe whole-heartedly that the 2A confers an individual right. I'm with you guys on this.
The problem here is that folks back then had a natural assumption. The militia was the body of folk who could be mustered for common defense, and they included those who kept their own arms. Furthermore, it was an expectation that individuals would self-organize for their common defense. Therefore, the individual right and the collective right was all one thing. The big issue back then was that the British were quite fond of using confiscation of arms as a way of limiting a groups means of opposing their control and quelling local trouble. At the start of the Revolution, we see this happening in famous incidents at Williamsburg, New York, Philadelphia and all up and down the Eastern Seaboard. This was also at the heart of what drove the Over Mountain guys up Kings Mountain and got Ferguson killed. Ferguson was no big deal to the Over Mountain group until he declared a confiscation of their arms. Heck, the British-led colonial governments were doing this clear up to the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.
Here we are 200+ years later trying to parse what a militia is. Is it an individual right to own a firearm? Is it the right of a state to organize a militia? The answer is yes, damnit! It's this and whole bunch of other things. Our Founders believed in an armed populace being the foundation of Freedom and the greatest protection against future tyranny.
I'm always amazed that a lawyer can change the meaning of something as simple as the second amendment. It is the right of the people. All arms are covered, and you can't infringe upon the right. If any of that is changed, the law is unconstitutional, whether or not you agree with it.
I think one of the big problems in all this is that the Founders did not have the same mindset as we all have in regards as to what "militia" meant. Both sides in all this can take the Founders' own words and give it different interpretations. Mind you, before I go on, I want to say that I believe whole-heartedly that the 2A confers an individual right. I'm with you guys on this.
The problem here is that folks back then had a natural assumption. The militia was the body of folk who could be mustered for common defense, and they included those who kept their own arms. Furthermore, it was an expectation that individuals would self-organize for their common defense. Therefore, the individual right and the collective right was all one thing. The big issue back then was that the British were quite fond of using confiscation of arms as a way of limiting a groups means of opposing their control and quelling local trouble. At the start of the Revolution, we see this happening in famous incidents at Williamsburg, New York, Philadelphia and all up and down the Eastern Seaboard. This was also at the heart of what drove the Over Mountain guys up Kings Mountain and got Ferguson killed. Ferguson was no big deal to the Over Mountain group until he declared a confiscation of their arms. Heck, the British-led colonial governments were doing this clear up to the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.
Here we are 200+ years later trying to parse what a militia is. Is it an individual right to own a firearm? Is it the right of a state to organize a militia? The answer is yes, damnit! It's this and whole bunch of other things. Our Founders believed in an armed populace being the foundation of Freedom and the greatest protection against future tyranny.
The right is the right of "the people", not the right of "the militia". End of story. Granted, some people may form a militia at any time, but the right is stated to be the right of "the people ".
The right is the right of "the people", not the right of "the militia". End of story. Granted, some people may form a militia at any time, but the right is stated to be the right of "the people ".
You and I are in agreement. The problem is folks in our century try to parse things that shouldn't be parsed.
This shows promise to effectively derail the Left's "current" arguments to taking away our guns. Their whole argument is that guns kill people, while those of us that live in the"real" world and not the "perceived" world understand that criminals kill people not the guns themselves. Until the root cause "criminals" are effectively delt with by means of a harsher more punitive legal system; ie more actual executions instead of this revolving door of a "justice system" that is currently in place, taking away the spa treatments in prison and making jail time an absolute miserable experience instead of a stint at "camp snoopy", the problem of murder and violent crime will only increase. Most all criminals are cowards to a large degree and the current laxidasical system of punishment only caters to their fear instead of reinforcing it. If more criminals were delt with harshly then the crime will naturally diminish.
I would not buy something that runs on any kind of primer given the possibility of primer shortages and even regulations. In fact, why not buy a flintlock? Really. Rocks aren't going away anytime soon.
from what little I've heard from the arguments, it sounds like SCOTUS will shoot down the law in terms of the state determining the justification of why you need to be allowed to carry a firearm
at the same time, they are saying there are places that no one should be allowed to carry a gun. Where they are getting hung up is the idea that 3am on the subway versus 3pm on the subway. They recognize the need to be able to defend yourself but don't trust the gun owner to use the weapon with discretion especially in regards to crowded areas
Also heard you shouldn't expect a decision on this until sometime next year.
At the moment it sounds like Scotus will determine that people should be allowed to carry but allow the city to create no gun zones.
but that is just me guessing on 20 minutes of reading
Last edited by KFWA; 11/05/21.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
from what little I've heard from the arguments, it sounds like SCOTUS will shoot down the law in terms of the state determining the justification of why you need to be allowed to carry a firearm
at the same time, they are saying there are places that no one should be allowed to carry a gun. Where they are getting hung up is the idea that 3am on the subway versus 3pm on the subway. They recognize the need to be able to defend yourself but don't trust the gun owner to use the weapon with discretion especially in regards to crowded areas
Also heard you shouldn't expect a decision on this until sometime next year.
At the moment it sounds like Scotus will determine that people should be allowed to carry but allow the city to create no gun zones.
but that is just me guessing on 20 minutes of reading
Yes. The determination of what constitutes a "sensitive place" will be pushed to another case at a later date.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
My old boss lived in Queens, he had to fill out a firearms form every year and tell NYC what guns he had, why head them and had to pay a yearly fee for each one! I hope NYC loses big time and has to return all those fees!
Essentially renting his firearms from the .gov.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/b6/d8/98b6d863a5f722b551cd8e1440bd2bd4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/asJkzCLAz5iCY/giphy.gif)
