bj139 Wrote:I am only trying to understand what is written not to add additional ideas.

stanc Wrote:Trying to understand is good. The only trouble is, you did add an additional idea to what was written.

The Second Amendment does not say the RKBA is limited to arms which can be carried on the person.

stanc Wrote:You conveniently omitted the line directly above the list that you copied: "Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:"

You're correct in calling them "classifications," which is a synonym of "categories." However, "topics" is not. And yes, you were clear. Unfortunately, you were also wrong.

Take the Grendel forum, for example. Some topics of discussion are banned (e.g., religion, politics), as are some categories of speech (e.g., obscenities, personal attacks).

bj139 Wrote:Read it word for word and tell me I am wrong. Only the words, not your interpretation.

stanc Wrote:I read it word for word, and I think you're wrong. What the 2A says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How you're interpreting it: "...the right of the people to keep and bear only such Arms as can be carried on the person, shall not be infringed."

Plus, this nation depended heavily on privately-owned ships, armed with privately-owned cannon, to fight the British Navy in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Given that history, does it really seem reasonable to think that the Founders would have wanted the 2A to apply only to small arms?

However, I'll say that you could be right, since the only purpose noted (in the 2A) for the RKBA is to ensure arming the militia, members of which were required to provide their own individual weapons, but not artillery or mortars.

bj139 Wrote:I was only thinking outside the box or maybe fully inside the box as justification for absolute private citizen ownership of M16s since they are the standard military weapon today.
A nagging question I have is whether states have the right to violate a citizen's constitutional rights as enumerated in the US Constitution.

bj139 Wrote:I was only thinking outside the box or maybe fully inside the box as justification for absolute private citizen ownership of M16s since they are the standard military weapon today.

bj139 Wrote:A nagging question I have is whether states have the right to violate a citizen's constitutional rights as enumerated in the US Constitution.

stanc Wrote:First, the militia system that required all able-bodied, military-age males to serve in state militias -- and provide their own individual weapons -- ceased to exist.

stanc Wrote:The modern National Guard, as well as the official state militias that still survive, issue all required arms, eliminating the need for members to provide their own.

stanc Wrote:Then there's the matter of the NFA, and state laws that restrict or prohibit private ownership of automatic weapons, laws that are pretty much impossible to repeal.

stanc Wrote:From a practical standpoint, it doesn't really matter much if they have the right, as long as the courts -- and the people -- allow such violations to be perpetrated.

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:First, the militia system that required all able-bodied, military-age males to serve in state militias -- and provide their own individual weapons -- ceased to exist.

If this is true, please show me the law or statute that made the unorganized militia null and void? If your statement is true then explain why a federal district ruling that a Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring other firearms to be stored unloaded or locked unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.Oct 17, 2008.

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:The modern National Guard, as well as the official state militias that still survive, issue all required arms, eliminating the need for members to provide their own.

Once again, please show me the law or statute where the unorganized militia was disbanded and no longer considered relevant?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:Then there's the matter of the NFA, and state laws that restrict or prohibit private ownership of automatic weapons, laws that are pretty much impossible to repeal.

This I agree with except for state laws. There have been numerous state anti-gun laws which have been repealed...

stanc Wrote:a. AFAIK, there is no law or statute making the unorganized militia "null and void."
b. I don't see where the 2008 court ruling has any relevance to arming the militia.


Obviously, the unorganized militia still exists. Now please show me the current law or statute where its members are required to provide their own individual weapons?


Yeah? What state laws that restrict or prohibit private ownership of automatic weapons have ever been repealed?

LR1955 Wrote:Guys:

This must be the third or forth thread where the argument concerns the power of the 2A to stop the government from banning certain types of firearms.
Honestly, this unending stream of the same arguments that have infected almost every 2A thread, are getting tiresome.
I don't think anyone here would deny that the Government can and does restrict gun ownership. Just like it can and does restrict other 'rights'.
So, instead of regurgitating the same argument of whether the 2A is absolute or not, how about sticking to the subject of Kavanaugh and his decision in this specific case?

stanc Wrote:I have twice attempted to get the thread back on track (posts #20 and #28), but to no avail. Perhaps no one is sticking to the subject because there's virtually nothing to discuss.

Since everyone seems to agree with Kavanaugh's opinion that “a ban on a class of arms is...equivalent to a ban on a category of speech,” what more is there to be said about it?