Dobbs watch thread (Row v Wade Overturned)

[Camp]

Exactly.

The abortion part doesn’t get top billing.

That would be 10 years old.

Then rape…then relative…then we can discuss medical.

[DMK]

A ban has not yet taken effect in Indiana, which meant that the girl was able to travel to Dr. Bernard for the procedure.

[WuWei]

You’re a day late.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Where in the Constitution is there a delineation between freedom of expression and the Internet?

Why does there need to be? I’m not arguing that freedom of expression on the internet isn’t covered by the 1st Amendment. The government can’t infringe on your freedom of expression regardless the medium. And I’m saying if the 2nd assumes ammo, then the government can’t infringe on your right to whatever ammo your arm uses.

@Samm

There is no glossary of terms in the Constitution. It was written by educated men using language that was understood by all.

My understanding of the definition of arms from the time of the signing is basically any weapon that can be held in the hand. Do you have a different one that specifies which types of ammo are allowed?

@Samm

The distinction between ammunition and explosives as related to arms was understood by everyone involved in the writing of the Constitution. It is, in fact, integral to the meaning of the word “arms” and the phrase “to be armed.” They wrote a document that has stood the test of time and anticipated that time would require amendments to keep it current. What they did not anticipate was that the populace would become ignorant of the common knowledge and meaning of the vernacular of their day.

It requires more than oral tradition to use it as a basis to infringe on the 2A. What evidence is there that the terms “arms” includes ammo for said arms unless said ammo is an explosive?

@Samm

But no matter how much some people today want to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment because of their ignorance, it does not change the fact that the words written there mean exactly the same today as they did when they were written.

Well Black’s Law Dictionary says this:

@black's law

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154. Arms, or coat of arms, signifies insignia, i. e., ensigns of honor, such as were formerly assumed by soldiers of fortune, and painted on their shields to distinguish them; or nearly the same as armorial bearings, (q. v.)

Don’t mortars fire explosives?

[fallenturtle]

@coolidge

We are discussing the differences of arms and ordinance with a group who don’t know if they are a man or woman.

I’m a man. I understand the difference between arms and ordinance as well. The issue is when ordinance comes in the form of ammo and on what basis can the government infringe on the ownership of one form of ammo vs the other.

[WuWei]

On no basis.

[Samm]

Why are you continuing down this road? You are wrong. Just accept it and move on.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

Don’t mortars fire explosives?

Usually, yes.

but …

Read Black carefully. The mortar is an arm of the artillery, not of the individual soldiers. Artillery arms are crew weapons, designed to be operated by two or more men. The Second Amendment is clear "the right of the people … " i.e. individuals.

By the way, like grenade launchers, owning a mortar is perfectly legal and requires no permit to do so. Owning a mortar round requires a permit and a tax for each individual round.

[fallenturtle]

@WuWei

On no basis.

Thus ammo that explodes is covered.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Why are you continuing down this road? You are wrong. Just accept it and move on.

Still waiting for evidence to that.

@Samm

Usually, yes.

but …

Read Black carefully. The mortar is an arm of the artillery, not of the individual soldiers. Artillery arms are crew weapons, designed to be operated by two or more men. The Second Amendment is clear "the right of the people … " i.e. individuals.

Looking at the source of the quote (Wm. English v. The State. The State v. G. W. Carter. The State v. Wm. Daniel.) it sounds like he’s including the artillery when describing the arms of a militiaman or soldier to which the Constitution is referring.

Though interestingly, I think the conclusion of that case was that pistols weren’t protected by the 2A, now moot because of Heller.

@Samm

By the way, like grenade launchers, owning a mortar is perfectly legal and requires no permit to do so. Owning a mortar round requires a permit and a tax for each individual round.

Well as we know the second isn’t limited to only arms that were around when the BoR was being drafted.

[Ben_Natuf]

mortars are crew serve weapons, a person cannot bear them into battle on their own.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

Still waiting for evidence to that.

Not accepting is not the same as still waiting.

[Ben_Natuf]

no, but it is limited to arms that can be kept and borne by an individual. the keyword being “borne”

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

Looking at the source of the quote (Wm. English v. The State. The State v. G. W. Carter. The State v. Wm. Daniel.) it sounds like he’s including the artillery when describing the arms of a militiaman or soldier to which the Constitution is referring.

Though interestingly, I think the conclusion of that case was that pistols weren’t protected by the 2A, now moot because of Heller.

It doesn’t matter what you think is sounds like. Artillery and mortars are crew weapons, not individual arms.

And you’re wrong about pistols too. Pistols were cavalry and dragoon arms. Those combatants are individuals just like infantry are.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

Well as we know the second isn’t limited to only arms that were around when the BoR was being drafted.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Like I pointed out earlier, neither was the internet, yet it is covered by the First.

[WuWei]

@fallenturtle

@WuWei

On no basis.

Thus ammo that explodes is covered.

AR 15 platform is covered.

[fallenturtle]

@Ben_Natuf

mortars are crew serve weapons, a person cannot bear them into battle on their own.

I understand, but the point is that in Black’s Law an explosive is being listed as something protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

Still waiting for evidence to that.

Not accepting is not the same as still waiting.

You’ve provided no evidence.

[fallenturtle]

@Ben_Natuf

no, but it is limited to arms that can be kept and borne by an individual. the keyword being “borne”

Great. And a grenade launcher and its ammo can be.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

It doesn’t matter what you think is sounds like. Artillery and mortars are crew weapons, not individual arms.

Then this statement, which is featured in Black’s Law, is wrong?
“The word “arms” in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.”

@Samm

And you’re wrong about pistols too. Pistols were cavalry and dragoon arms. Those combatants are individuals just like infantry are.

I’m not wrong in regards to the conclusion of that Texas ruling. The ruling was wrong.