The ugly truth behind Obama's war on the Second Amendment

[TCassidy]

A nuclear device can be made that will fit into a suitcase.

You have been watching too much tv. The term "suitcase nuke" is a metaphor for a portable device. The minimum mass of a plutonium-239 fission warhead is 33 pounds (15 kg). Add to that the shielding (another 80 pounds) the delivery barrel (another 20 pounds), the conventional explosive trigger charge (5 pounds), and the casing and electronic controls (detonator/receiver and antenna) and you add another 15 pounds. So you have 153 pounds without the carrier.

What part of the conditional clause in the Second Amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...) do you not understand?

Dr. Roy Copperud, Professor of English, Southern California University,

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Why is it there if not to restrict the bearing of arms to a militia?

See above.

 

[carpro]

I still believe in the bedrock Baptist principle "Priesthood of the Believer" and have found that what I used to consider political beliefs are based on my faith and are faithful to the Bible.

Baloney.

Unmitigated drivel.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You have been watching too much tv. The term "suitcase nuke" is a metaphor for a portable device. The minimum mass of a plutonium-239 fission warhead is 33 pounds (15 kg). Add to that the shielding (another 80 pounds) the delivery barrel (another 20 pounds), the conventional explosive trigger charge (5 pounds), and the casing and electronic controls (detonator/receiver and antenna) and you add another 15 pounds. So you have 153 pounds without the carrier.

Dr. Roy Copperud, Professor of English, Southern California University,

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

See above.

Actually, I think the interpretation of the Second Amendment is more complicated than you suggest. See Second Amendment

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

The generalized right to own and carry guns stood on this very precarious legal precedent from 1939 until 2008, when a series of suits brought before the Supreme Court gave it more and more power to support that interpretation. (See reference) I certainly agree that your interpretation is the law of the land today based on these extensions of the Second Amendment's original purpose.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Baloney.

Unmitigated drivel.

Are you commenting on the Baptist belief in the Priesthood of the Believer?

 

[SheepWhisperer]

I still believe in the bedrock Baptist principle "Priesthood of the Believer" and have found that what I used to consider political beliefs are based on my faith and are faithful to the Bible. Everyone else is free to do the same.

I do believe I will....
Luke 22............he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

A sharp "sword" was the "Smith and Wesson" of it's day.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 PM Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

Actually, I think the interpretation of the Second Amendment is more complicated than you suggest. See Second Amendment

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case,

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.

Try to stay up to date.

As to your citing Miller, you should have read the decision first. The court ruled that private ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.

Miller was a win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a loss for the Nazi gun grabbers.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

Try to stay up to date.

As to your citing Miller, you should have read the decision first. The court ruled that private ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.

Miller was a win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a loss for the Nazi gun grabbers.

You repeated what I said. Tte decision allowed gun ownership

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.

Try to stay up to date.

As to your citing Miller, you should have read the decision first. The court ruled that private ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.

Miller was a win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a loss for the Nazi gun grabbers.

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

United States v. Miller

No. 696

Argued March 30, 1939

Decided May 15, 1939

307 U.S. 174

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Syllabus

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Not what I read in the decision. Look at the text in bold. BTW, Nazi's weren't too well liked in thew U.S. in 1939 nor are the Alt-Right Neo-Nazi's who marched for Trump in Charlottesville today.

 

[TCassidy]

Once again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 PM Pacific.