"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
What is "mentally ill"? What is a "sensitive place"? What are "conditions and qualifications"? In short, this ruling in not exactly a victory. More like a successful holding action in the process of a long retreat.
Jay Chambers
· 11 months ago
Am I blind or did you forget to name the actual book?
Jay Chambers
· 11 months ago
"The Founder's Second Amendment"
Sounds like a great book!
vidyohs
· 11 months ago
Randy is dead on target. A careful reading of the ruling reveals that the decision was not the carte blanche some people think it is.
A holding action is as good a name for it as any when it is applied to the people at large.
But, because of this ruling, the gun haters are now shifting focus to deprive you of your use of guns but preventing you from buying ammunition other than that that has a traceable "fingerprint" that can be identified as to each individual round fired and registration of all ammunition purchases to trace those rounds back to the one who fired the shot. This proposed (or soon to be proposed) law will make home reloading illegal and sales of shot and powder will cease.
The battle is far far from over. I say it again, the left will never quit on anything until they die. Your only relief from their never ending attempts to dictate how you will live comes when they pass from the scene.
Jack Rutner
· 11 months ago
I read the book and it was terrific. It made it quite clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and when drafted was viewed as being an individual right.
ted
· 11 months ago
sounds like a great book, i picked one up on Amazon.
Gil
· 11 months ago
LOL vidyohs! Them guns are be'en banned!!
I wonder likewise about FDR and his banning of private gold ownership. Yet people could still own silver, platinum, palladium, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. I wonder if you, vidyohs, & friends get hot under the collar about the private ownership of grenades? All weapons should be permitted under the 2nd Amendment, er right? It says "to keep and bear arms" not "to keep and bear guns". Heck, the Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) was concerned whether the 2nd Amendment allowed for concealed knives!
By the way - does the 2nd Amendment protect people who'd take guns & knives onto private residences? Surely the 'right to bear arms' is universal and does not allow private authority to disarm you either.
brotio
· 11 months ago
Gil,
We've covered the Second Amendment before. If you've forgotten that primer, you can search the archives. I'm sure it's all still there.
As for your question about bringing arms onto another's property against their wishes: You must surely know that you enter my property solely at my convenience. If you dislike my rules you have the option of keeping off of my property.
Gil
· 11 months ago
Gadzooks brotio you're for 'private victim disarmament'!?!? Presumably even in a minimalist Libertarian world where the government is but a wafer-thin organisation with very little public property could mean the average person could be virtually always disarmed by private owners! Hell the government might as well argue that a person only has the right 'to keep and bear arms' on their own private property just as anyone can drive an unregistered vehicle on their own property but can't take it onto the open road.
So if muirgeo, trumpit and I came onto your property brotio?/vidyohs?/etc. looking like some sort of ccwboys with a pair of guns and a gunbelt full of bullets you wouldn't actually ask to hang it all up on the wall until we get ready to leave? Er, right?
brotio
· 11 months ago
"So if muirgeo, trumpit and I came onto your property..."
You're presuming I would allow you onto my property.
Hell the government might as well argue that a person only has the right 'to keep and bear arms' on their own private property..."
By that reasoning, the Second Amendment would read, "The right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed."
Gil
· 11 months ago
"You're presuming I would allow you onto my property."
Hehehheheh. Okeedokee. :)
brotio
· 11 months ago
Gil,
Since I'm always hammering Mierduck for not answering direct questions, I'll go ahead and answer yours.
You are an avowed socialist, so theft isn't exactly immoral to you. You just prefer others get their hands dirty on your behalf. With that knowledge (and only that knowledge, since we only know each other through this blog), I would require you to disarm before entering my property. You would certainly be free to stay off of my property if that request is unacceptable to you.
You are the only one of the three people you mentioned who might receive an invitation to be on my property, because you're a funny guy. :)
Mierduck's mind-boggling ignorance coupled with his unbridled arrogance just might make me take Vidyohs' exhortations that Leftists "leave the scene" a little too close to heart. And, I'm still half-convinced that Trumpit is a satirist.
Gil
· 11 months ago
So you can see why even NRA types can advocate that gun control should apply to some people.
vidyohs
· 11 months ago
Gilduck,
Others are pretty much gentle with idiots like you, I have no patience for it nor do I wish to return to those days.
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution does indeed use the ambiguous term "arms" as well as the term "bear". The founding fathers who framed the Constitution had all participated in an armed revolution with a superior force in both quantities and qualities of arms.
Those wise gentlemen, understanding that for an armed populace to have any chance of tossing off an oppressive government would indeed need access to arms equal to that available to the government that was oppressing them.
So, my little duckling, intelligent people can only conclude from all the evidence that the founders intended American people to have the right to own, bear, and use any arms available to the government they live under, gernades, bazookas, smart bombs, and even nukes. The only question an intelligent man must ask and answer is, "what level of arms will the government use against me, what arms have they used against other of my people, what level would they used if pressed?"
Whatever answer you come up with in terms of arms the government has available, and shown that it will use, is the answer to what arms the people are meant to have legitimate right to.
Let's see, a quick review of arms used against U.S. Citizens in the recent past:
1. Apache gunships.
2. Apc's
3. Tanks
4. Flame throwers
5. Finely trained and honed combat troops
6. Fully automatic rifles in all calibers
7. Military trained snipers using the ultimate available in the art.
8. Silenced rifles
9 Laser sighted rifles and pistols
Only a foreign fool, or someone who thinks like a foreign fool, can come to any other conclusion that the one I presented above.
Americans are guaranteed the right to own, keep and bear arms.
I just love it when I get to see idiots like the socialist of the world attempt to engage anyone in a discussion of reason and hard facts. Watching them rhetorically dance when they rhetorically step on their own dicks is fun. And, gilduck, you are one of the foremost of the dancers.
Gil
· 11 months ago
Thanks vidyohs for presuming I have a ginormous dick that I could actually step on it! LOL!! :P
Well if you presume the 2nd Amendment applies to the U.S. citizens versus the U.S. Local/States/Federal Governments only (even though militias at times worked with the government and fellow citizens, such as in suppressing trade unions) and you woud presumedly believe in 'natural rights' then you don't need a steenkin Constitution because it's a restriction for the relative government in question. Which is to say I'm sure you'd argue you'll arm yourself with whatever and however you see fit regardless of what the law, guvmint or your neighbours, for that matter, think. I'm sure if you could secure a nuke vidyohs you bargaining against guvmint would be very high indeed.
All Comments
From the Syllabus;
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
What is "mentally ill"? What is a "sensitive place"? What are "conditions and qualifications"? In short, this ruling in not exactly a victory. More like a successful holding action in the process of a long retreat.
Am I blind or did you forget to name the actual book?
"The Founder's Second Amendment"
Sounds like a great book!
Randy is dead on target. A careful reading of the ruling reveals that the decision was not the carte blanche some people think it is.
A holding action is as good a name for it as any when it is applied to the people at large.
But, because of this ruling, the gun haters are now shifting focus to deprive you of your use of guns but preventing you from buying ammunition other than that that has a traceable "fingerprint" that can be identified as to each individual round fired and registration of all ammunition purchases to trace those rounds back to the one who fired the shot. This proposed (or soon to be proposed) law will make home reloading illegal and sales of shot and powder will cease.
The battle is far far from over. I say it again, the left will never quit on anything until they die. Your only relief from their never ending attempts to dictate how you will live comes when they pass from the scene.
I read the book and it was terrific. It made it quite clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and when drafted was viewed as being an individual right.
sounds like a great book, i picked one up on Amazon.
LOL vidyohs! Them guns are be'en banned!!
I wonder likewise about FDR and his banning of private gold ownership. Yet people could still own silver, platinum, palladium, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. I wonder if you, vidyohs, & friends get hot under the collar about the private ownership of grenades? All weapons should be permitted under the 2nd Amendment, er right? It says "to keep and bear arms" not "to keep and bear guns". Heck, the Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) was concerned whether the 2nd Amendment allowed for concealed knives!
By the way - does the 2nd Amendment protect people who'd take guns & knives onto private residences? Surely the 'right to bear arms' is universal and does not allow private authority to disarm you either.
Gil,
We've covered the Second Amendment before. If you've forgotten that primer, you can search the archives. I'm sure it's all still there.
As for your question about bringing arms onto another's property against their wishes: You must surely know that you enter my property solely at my convenience. If you dislike my rules you have the option of keeping off of my property.
Gadzooks brotio you're for 'private victim disarmament'!?!? Presumably even in a minimalist Libertarian world where the government is but a wafer-thin organisation with very little public property could mean the average person could be virtually always disarmed by private owners! Hell the government might as well argue that a person only has the right 'to keep and bear arms' on their own private property just as anyone can drive an unregistered vehicle on their own property but can't take it onto the open road.
So if muirgeo, trumpit and I came onto your property brotio?/vidyohs?/etc. looking like some sort of ccwboys with a pair of guns and a gunbelt full of bullets you wouldn't actually ask to hang it all up on the wall until we get ready to leave? Er, right?
"So if muirgeo, trumpit and I came onto your property..."
You're presuming I would allow you onto my property.
Hell the government might as well argue that a person only has the right 'to keep and bear arms' on their own private property..."
By that reasoning, the Second Amendment would read, "The right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed."
"You're presuming I would allow you onto my property."
Hehehheheh. Okeedokee. :)
Gil,
Since I'm always hammering Mierduck for not answering direct questions, I'll go ahead and answer yours.
You are an avowed socialist, so theft isn't exactly immoral to you. You just prefer others get their hands dirty on your behalf. With that knowledge (and only that knowledge, since we only know each other through this blog), I would require you to disarm before entering my property. You would certainly be free to stay off of my property if that request is unacceptable to you.
You are the only one of the three people you mentioned who might receive an invitation to be on my property, because you're a funny guy. :)
Mierduck's mind-boggling ignorance coupled with his unbridled arrogance just might make me take Vidyohs' exhortations that Leftists "leave the scene" a little too close to heart. And, I'm still half-convinced that Trumpit is a satirist.
So you can see why even NRA types can advocate that gun control should apply to some people.
Gilduck,
Others are pretty much gentle with idiots like you, I have no patience for it nor do I wish to return to those days.
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution does indeed use the ambiguous term "arms" as well as the term "bear". The founding fathers who framed the Constitution had all participated in an armed revolution with a superior force in both quantities and qualities of arms.
Those wise gentlemen, understanding that for an armed populace to have any chance of tossing off an oppressive government would indeed need access to arms equal to that available to the government that was oppressing them.
So, my little duckling, intelligent people can only conclude from all the evidence that the founders intended American people to have the right to own, bear, and use any arms available to the government they live under, gernades, bazookas, smart bombs, and even nukes. The only question an intelligent man must ask and answer is, "what level of arms will the government use against me, what arms have they used against other of my people, what level would they used if pressed?"
Whatever answer you come up with in terms of arms the government has available, and shown that it will use, is the answer to what arms the people are meant to have legitimate right to.
Let's see, a quick review of arms used against U.S. Citizens in the recent past:
1. Apache gunships.
2. Apc's
3. Tanks
4. Flame throwers
5. Finely trained and honed combat troops
6. Fully automatic rifles in all calibers
7. Military trained snipers using the ultimate available in the art.
8. Silenced rifles
9 Laser sighted rifles and pistols
Only a foreign fool, or someone who thinks like a foreign fool, can come to any other conclusion that the one I presented above.
Americans are guaranteed the right to own, keep and bear arms.
I just love it when I get to see idiots like the socialist of the world attempt to engage anyone in a discussion of reason and hard facts. Watching them rhetorically dance when they rhetorically step on their own dicks is fun. And, gilduck, you are one of the foremost of the dancers.
Thanks vidyohs for presuming I have a ginormous dick that I could actually step on it! LOL!! :P
Well if you presume the 2nd Amendment applies to the U.S. citizens versus the U.S. Local/States/Federal Governments only (even though militias at times worked with the government and fellow citizens, such as in suppressing trade unions) and you woud presumedly believe in 'natural rights' then you don't need a steenkin Constitution because it's a restriction for the relative government in question. Which is to say I'm sure you'd argue you'll arm yourself with whatever and however you see fit regardless of what the law, guvmint or your neighbours, for that matter, think. I'm sure if you could secure a nuke vidyohs you bargaining against guvmint would be very high indeed.