Atlanta Medical

[H_Arendt]

@Steel-W0LF

No they didn’t. They stayed pretty silent on it because it didn’t even come up until about the 30s….

And even in the 30s the courts ruled military arms could not be restricted, and the NFA and ATF have been operating in violation of that ruling for 80 years.

Military arms are not restricted? Have you tried to buy a hand grenade lately?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Interestingly, this is all pretty well laid out in Federalist #2, where the intention behind the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. Hamilton discusses militias; not ground standing, not castle doctrines, not regulation free gun ownership-militias.

But the gun cult ignores all of that, save for a single cherry picked quote:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped

[Steel-W0LF]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

“Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people…”

“Turning back to the prefatory clause, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the term well-regulated militia does not refer to state or congressionally regulated military forces as described in the Constitution’s Militia Clause….”

Right. I am arguing that a this violated the principle of constitutional originalism and constitutes judicial activism and overreach. My opinion of course. However the majority decision in Heller did not endorse an absolute ban in limits on access to guns, types of guns, etc. That court decision doesn’t exist yet, although many people pretend it does.

But the real issue I was raising was not my disappointment at conservatives abandoning their self proclaimed “Constitutional Originalism” but risk that gun rights advocates face if they are unwilling to work with 2A supporters like me to find a way to address the rising tide of public opinion that something has to be done at the constant drumbeat of dangerous misuse of guns.

I’m willing to work with the gun control crowd the moment it’s done via the amendment process…… because “originalism”. It can’t legally be done any other way.

[WuWei]

Responsible for a killing and 4 woundings.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

Since almost no one wants to “ban guns” your question is moot.

[Steel-W0LF]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

No they didn’t. They stayed pretty silent on it because it didn’t even come up until about the 30s….

And even in the 30s the courts ruled military arms could not be restricted, and the NFA and ATF have been operating in violation of that ruling for 80 years.

Military arms are not restricted? Have you tried to buy a hand grenade lately?

I didn’t say they aren’t restricted, I said the Supreme Court ruled they couldn’t be restricted, but that the atf has been violating that ruling.

Read the “U.S, vs Miller” decision…… 1934 I think. (Memory)

[H_Arendt]

@Steel-W0LF

I’m willing to work with the gun control crowd the moment it’s done via the amendment process…… because “originalism”. It can’t legally be done any other way.

Under Heller, which is the ruling doctrine, there is great latitude to implement gun control. No amendment needed. So let’s get to work.

[Steel-W0LF]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

I’m willing to work with the gun control crowd the moment it’s done via the amendment process…… because “originalism”. It can’t legally be done any other way.

Under Heller, which is the ruling doctrine, there is great latitude to implement gun control. No amendment needed. So let’s get to work.

If it violates “shall not be infringed” you need an amendment.

[WuWei]

[WuWei]

https://jneilschulman.agorist.com//2010/05/j-neil-schulmans-stopping-power-the-unabridged-second-amendment/

[H_Arendt]

@Steel-W0LF

Read the “U.S, vs Miller” decision…… 1934 I think. (Memory)

I think you have U.S. Vs. Miller backwards. The court upheld the National Firearms Act holding that the only guns that could not be restricted were those directly connected to a well ordered militia. It was in rejecting cases like this that Heller becomes such an example of judicial activism.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

But the 2A is different as much as you want to pretend otherwise.

You’re correct. It is the only one that says “shall not be infringed”

[H_Arendt]

@Steel-W0LF

If it violates “shall not be infringed” you need an amendment.

Not according to Judge Scalia in Heller.

[WuWei]

Didn’t he.

[WuWei]

@Steel-W0LF

Hint #2: the people are “the militia”.

Irrelevant. The right is of the people.

[WuWei]

@H_Arendt

If it is not a “qualifier” what is is?

https://jneilschulman.agorist.com//2010/05/j-neil-schulmans-stopping-power-the-unabridged-second-amendment/

Educate yoself.

[H_Arendt]

@WuWei

You’re correct. It is the only one that says “shall not be infringed”

The 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law.” Shall we impeach Congress members who vote for laws because they violate the Constitution.

Cherry picking phrases renders the Constitution meaningless.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@H_Arendt

My worry is that the intransigence of the 2nd Amendment absolutists in the face of common sense regulations that have broad support will eventually lead to broader restrictions than I want – or you want – as the public becomes increasingly incensed over inaction in the face of daily mass shootings.

I believe that is inevitable, but I don’t think I’ll be alive to see it.

Might want to look at the trends.

[Steel-W0LF]

@H_Arendt

@Steel-W0LF

Read the “U.S, vs Miller” decision…… 1934 I think. (Memory)

I think you have U.S. Vs. Miller backwards. The court upheld the National Firearms Act holding that the only guns that could not be restricted were those directly connected to a well ordered militia. It was in rejecting cases like this that Heller becomes such an example of judicial activism.

Umm. You just said what I did.

The only weapons allowed to be regulated according to US vs Miller were NON- military arms.

The exact opposite of how the atf operates.

Exactly as I stated.

Edit: And no, that ruling doesn’t “uphold” the NFA, it fully and completely blows it to pieces.

[WuWei]

Hog wash