The deadly ignorance of the left!


Right. A federal law that enforced the language of the Second Amendment for example, requiring semi-automatic weapons of all types be subject to actual membership in a state militia (aka the National Guard) be kept in government inspected and certified lock-ups, subject to random audit, and only permitted to be used in official militia training or deployment. 5


Not true you are making this shit up !
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense …


This is the way the Supreme Court of the United States of America interpenetrated the second in 2008 !
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense …
You can’t change this ruling by saying you disagree with it !


Actually the Supreme Court has put limitations on speech. :wink:


Who’s suggesting that??


That perspective most certainly erases the words ‘the right to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT be infringed’.
SHALL NOT is a legal imperative, not a request, not a suggestion.


I want you to show me the law you are drawing your comment from… Please define for me ‘militia’ and show me where it says a ‘state militia’… and please define for me the word ‘regulated’… I await your response with bated breath…


Restrictions have already been placed upon “arms” as with the 1934 automatic arms ban. Time for a defining or arms deemed protected by the 2nd.


You make a rather murky case for your stance. Firstly, progressive politics are very wishy-washy when it comes to states’ rights. The left love to press states’ rights to their advantage when it suits but deny federalism when they find a friend in the Supreme Court.

We see regularly the concept that the constitution is an ‘evolving document’ but now, because Heller conceded the ‘new’ broader use of the 14th amendment to pull back states’ rights in defense of the 2nd amendment right, you want to fall back to a classical liberal view of federalism to defend your position.

‘Presser’ once again denied the application of the fourteen amendment rights be applied to states in protection of the rights of citizens under the privileges and immunities granted by the US Constitution. If states pressed their own hiring laws that were contradictory to the 1964 civil rights act you would immediately jump on the federal government’s right to impose federal law on the states based on the 14th amendment. You would be fanatical, as well you should be, if states attempted to deny 4th amendment rights and create indefinite detention laws of their own. The left used the Supreme Court and the 14th amendment to void state sodomy laws…

I would say ‘pick a side’ but we have seen continuously that the left see the constitution as relevant when they want it and hold it irrelevant when they don’t…

That was the lay of the land until the rise of the NRA dominated radical right, which currently controls the Supreme Court and most of the public dialog.

I find that comment to be most amusing… The ‘Rise of the radical right’ seems to be proportional to the ‘rise of those who want to disrupt the right of the individual to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’. No one is advocating for the right to fully automatic weapons or short barrel shotguns, although this fight over the 2nd amendment might end up rolling back that restriction.


Bingo, that’s precisely what needs to be done with a clarification on arms.


As it should. Ruby Ridge all started over failure to appear at court over the alleged sale of a short barrel shotgun by Randy Weaver. A bench warrant got issued, the federal government moved in like an army - killing American women and children. The elimination of restrictions is long overdue and the federal government has proved that citizens need to protect themselves from the government - just as the founders envisioned.


Understand that the 1934 NFA did not outlaw anything… it, like so many other leftist initiatives used the ploy of a tax which required a registration but it did not outlaw the possession of a machine gun, or dynamite for that matter.

The interesting thing is the NFA was only really challenged in the Supreme Court once with United States v Miller. Miller demurred that the NFA violated the 2nd amendment… and actually, the judge agreed with Miller but was really in favor of gun control and the judges acceptance of the demure was a backhanded way to keep the NFA in force.

Miller was a crook who was caught with a sawed off shotgun and had recently testified against some other crooks and they were none to happy about it. The judge figured that by agreeing with Miller that Miller who would, by necessity, need to go into hiding would not mount a defense if the state appealed. Miller was shot dead and the state won its appeal on default…

The intersting parts of this case though dealt with one of the NFA weapons… the sawed off shotgun.

The court found that the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons
appropriate for use in an militia and found that the short barreled gun did not meet that criteria… but the fact is, the US military did in fact commission and buy such weapons for close in fighting and guarding prisoners of war.

The NFA has not had a proper test in court and with written history and the generally (legally) accepted definition of militia the anti gun crowd could find themselves without standing…


The Parkland shooting has certainly revealed that there is a lot to be done. Military application firearms ban is but one, and not necessarily the most important.



While not a signatory to the Constitution he was most certainly part of the thought process…


Also, so many of the founders were against a standing army which is what gave merit to the idea of well regulated militias in the states. We long abandoned the nobility of no standing army and created a national guard as well. When the peasant was armed with the same weapon as an infantryman there may have been an argument that the second amendment provided a secure wall against a tyrannical government. Of course modernity has destroyed that argument too.


@Montecresto1 - Something I missed in that little summary above is that the court in the US v Miller case stated that the protections of the second amendment are specifically FOR military-type weapons…

You might want to go back and define the AR15 as a toy to escape that bit of the ruling.


Actually as you can well read in the comment from Noah Webster, the 2nd amendment was the guard against the intrusion of a federal government backed by ‘the sword’. It is clear you have no concept of what, as ugly as it would be, an armed civilian population standing against a government looks like. Unless the government is a scorched earth kind of leader, it will not drop bombs in the middle of cites… will not unleash volleys of artillery on not only people who are perfectly fine citizens but an infrastructure that it needs when the dust clears. 300 million barrels and 100s of billions of rounds against a military that have members to whom home towns and families have more importance than an out of control government. If only 1/3 of one percent of those 300 million barrels finds a hostile target… the government militia would be eradicated… Attrition is a bitch.



The SCOTUS cleared it up quite well.


I am a lifetime member of the NRA and I will destroy your ARs like I did mine just send them .