Second Amendment

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.

|

Gun control advocates love to hate District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. They may be protesting too much. Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology. The Supreme Court so far has avoided taking up any of those questions.

Still, many activists and legal scholars, along with at least two of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in Heller, believe the Second Amendment, properly construed, never guaranteed an individual right at all, or at least not one related to personal self-defense in the home.

Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor well regulated implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in Heller, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, explored the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses of the Second Amendment in a 1998 New York University Law Review article that helped lay the groundwork for Heller. While such prefatory phrases were unusual in the U.S. Constitution, Volokh noted, they were common enough in state constitutions that their function can be elucidated by considering how those documents were understood.

Volokh cited dozens of state constitutional provisions from the founding era that used a similar structure: a prefatory clause stating a purpose, followed by a statement of a right. These provisions covered, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom from unjustified searches and seizures, and the right to be tried for a crime in the county where the crime was committed. In such cases, Volokh said, no one could reasonably argue that "only when a judge has concluded that exercising the right furthers the prefatory purpose does the right exist."

The idea that the Second Amendment applies only to people actively serving in a government-organized militia is based partly on a misreading of the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller. In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of two men who violated the National Firearms Act by transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'…has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Justice James McReynolds wrote in the unanimous opinion, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

McReynolds was talking about the kinds of weapons covered, not the kinds of people. He repeatedly noted that the "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." In other words, the militia was not limited to a government-supervised fighting force; it consisted of all able-bodied men. The decision is an example of how both clauses of the Second Amendment can be meaningful, with McReynolds using the prefatory clause to help settle a question raised by the operative clause without reducing it to a nullity. What arms do the people have the right to keep and bear? The type used in an organized militia.

When the Second Amendment was written, the idea that Americans had an individual right (and in some cases an obligation) to possess arms for defense of both themselves and the state was widely understood. It had roots in the rights won by the Glorious Revolution of 1688—rights that the American Revolution was dedicated to preserving.

In 1788, as Massachusetts was poised to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Samuel Adams advocated an amendment making it clear that "the Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Commenting on the proposed Bill of Rights the following year, Tench Coxe, a member of the Continental Congress, described the Second Amendment this way: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

After the Bill of Rights was ratified, St. George Tucker, a professor of law at the College of William & Mary, described the Second Amendment as "the true palladium of liberty." He noted that "the right to self-defence is the first law of nature" and that "in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible."

This tradition was reflected in state constitutions that explicitly guaranteed an individual right to armed self-defense. Pennsylvania's, enacted in 1790, said "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned," for example, while Vermont's, enacted in 1777, said "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State."

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution also helps clarify what the Second Amendment was all about. Among other things, that section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" and "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

People who deny that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense often argue that it was actually meant to protect state control of militias. But Article I, Section 8 shows that the states had already lost that battle.

If you believe the Second Amendment is just about state control of militias, it's an absurd nullity: It lays out a right and a purpose contradicted by the body of the Constitution, which gives the federal government near-total authority over the organized militia. As Scalia put it in Heller, under that interpretation, which the Court was rejecting, "the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them," making the right meaningless.

The only sense in which the Second Amendment's language could logically relate to those clauses is by saying that, notwithstanding the federal government's authority over the militias, the one thing it may not do is infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Senate, in ratifying the Constitution, considered and rejected a proposal that would have added "for the common defense" as a restriction on that right.

The militia, in the classic sense of the mass body of physically able adult citizens, still exists, though state attempts to "regulate" it are actuated through the National Guard nowadays. Is the larger, unorganized militia "well regulated"? Probably not if understood the way the Framers would have: as a wide body of the American people prepared to take up arms in defense of themselves and the state.

But whether we currently have a well-regulated militia doesn't control whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The ideological background of the Second Amendment, the plain meaning of its operative clause, parallel phrasing elsewhere in the Constitution, and the militia clauses of Section I make it clear that they do. The Second Amendment, as Scalia rightly recognized, guarantees an individual right to the people, no matter how the federal government chooses to regulate the organized militia.

NEXT: New York's Place as America's Fine-Dining Mecca in Jeopardy As City Bans Foie Gras

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: I can’t find the Youtube clip, but there’s an interesting video of the British Historical Trust moving the megaliths at Stonehenge back an hour for the end of Daylight Saving Time you should watch.

    1. Spinal Tap had a song about this. Great tune.

    2. On Topic: isn’t it funny that the SCOTUS feelz the need to Heller The 2nd Amendment when the Amendment is so concise?

      That is exactly what the Founders warned us about. Government twisting hat your rights are and how they can limited those rights.

      Even in Heller Scalia prepped America for infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms.

      1. Yea, I’m not much a fan of Heller.
        Seems wrong to celebrate it because it implicitly justifies restrictions.
        It’s like the recent conservative celebration of Obama’s comments on woke culture.
        Totally misguided.
        Obama didn’t really push back on woke culture. First, he misidentified part of the problem (verbs instead of pronouns, as was pointed out in threads here), then he went on to basically say not that woke culture is wrong but that the methods their using aren’t effective enough. Not good enough activism.
        Similarly, Heller didn’t seem to say gun control is unconstitutional – only certain aspects of it.

        1. Similarly, Heller didn’t seem to say gun control is unconstitutional – only certain aspects of it.

          Specifically to the general context here, and massively distorted by Reason … Scalia explicitly reaffirmed that the only weapons protected by 2A are the modern equivalent of the weapons brought from home to militia service, at our founding. For rifles, that would be the modern equivalent of a musket .. a single-shot rifle that most would now call a hunting rifle.

          That limitation has been the Law of the Land since 1939 (US v Miller) … .which had made the Assault Weapons Ban fully Constitutional.

          1. You already got your ass handed to you on this before, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

            Only a retard would think that the 2nd Amendment protected only single-shot hunting rifles, because Scalia goes on to point out that the handgun ban violates the 2nd Amendment.

            1. Once again, your psychopathic ullshit is blatantly obvious

              the modern equivalent of the weapons brought from home to militia service, at our founding. For rifles, that would be the modern equivalent of a musket .. a single-shot rifle that most would now call a hunting rifle.

              Only a retard would think that the 2nd Amendment protected only single-shot hunting rifles,

              Only a drooling psychopath would lie so blatantly about words immediately above it. … as you have EVERY time I’ve cited and linked to Heller … or be too stupid to know that handguns were in use by the militia at our founding. (nmirk)

              …. You’re even more insane in denying the NRA was totally helpless against the Assault Weapons ban for two long years.

              YOU are the specific psycho I described, for posting nearly 4,000 words of SCOTUS rulings to cover ALL your crazed lies … with links and even page numbers.
              https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

              ANYONE can click that link, spnd less than akjnkm

              1. AND IT WORKED ,,, anyone can click that link, spend maybe 30 seconds scanning who had responded … and note that your whiny pussy says … NOTHING … since I had already anticipated your crazed bullshit … and already jammed it up your ass … in nearly 4000 words (smirk)

                I’d quote and link the exact Scalia words you fucking lied about here … FOR MAYBE THE 30th TIME … which you’d also deny … or just prove that you’re a fucking liar already on what *I* said … in nearly 4000 words!!!.

                (WATCH THE STALKING PSYCHO DENY THAT TOO … BLACK-AND-WHITE PROOF. The raging hatred of a world-class psycho)

                *flush*

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is desperate for that handgun ban that’s never coming.

                  *flush*

                  That’s the shit that Dumbfuck Hihnsano mistakes for arguments, while I’ve been jamming my gun ownership up his ass for months.

          2. You already got your ass handed to you on this before, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

            A lie JAMMED up YOUR ass … AGAIN!

            It took a 5-part post, nearly 4,000 words on SCOTUS rulings and page numbers, to PROVE all the ways you are full of shit.
            https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

            AND, the whiny pussy has NOT DARED to reply — a virtual confession of his guilt. (smirk)

            PLUS the INSANE FUCKING LIE documented in this thread, (November.4.2019 at 11:57)

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again.

          3. No, for rifles that would be state-of-the-art military rifles, to include the military versions of the AR-15, the M-14, M-4 etc. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the weapons contemplated included the very best military weapons available. And that included cannon. But we have already tolerated restrictions on those rights since 1939 or so.

          4. US v. Miller was a travesty of the justice system… the only SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd for much of the 20th century… was without Miller or his legal representatives appearing at the court. ONLY the folks there to uphold Federal power spoke to the court… and Miller turned up dead eventually, I assume finally done in by the folks he wanted the sawed-off for.

        2. Yea, I’m not much a fan of Heller.
          Seems wrong to celebrate it because it implicitly justifies restrictions.That is very EXPLICIT, and he merely affirmed what had been the Law of the Land since a 1939 ruling.

          1. DAMN Corrected

            Yea, I’m not much a fan of Heller Seems wrong to celebrate it because it implicitly justifies restrictions.

            The “restrictions ” (limits) are very EXPLICIT, lengthy and detailed. But he merely affirmed AND DEFENDED what had been the Law of the Land since a 1939 ruling — which had paved the way for the Assault Weapons Ban.
            .

      2. “Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.”

        It’s a little concerning a Supreme Court justice could be so obtuse on this subject.

        1. Do we believe you or Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts — all conservatives?

          And why do you support virtually every liberal Justice at the time, AGAINST the conservatives/originalists?

          SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ. joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

          Shall I assume you support a “living Constitution?”

          P.S. Check Heller. Scalia tore Stevens to shreds, all up and down his opinion.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shows his reading comprehension still sucks.

            1. BOTH Red Rocks and NOTB2 (who are socks of the same crazed psychopathasshiole) …. are full of shit … again…. as PROVEN by the dissents and concurrences I pasted from Page 3 of Heller, at the Supreme Court web site.
              https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
              (sneer)

              Nobody will NEED to check that link to see how psychopathic he is
              Just watch his INSANE, DROOLING DENIAL.

              And pity anyone so totally consumed by such raging hatred, so totally out of control, that he self-destructs … in public.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still assmad that Scalia didn’t ban handguns.

                With any luck, I’ll get another entry on his enemies list.

          2. No, we don’t believe in them because we are libertarians.

            Of course your are a fascist, Hihn, so you use anything you can lay your blood stained hands on for propaganda.

            1. SUPREME COURT RULINGS ARE “PROPAGANDA”
              Which is just as hilarious as Trump snarling, “FAKE NEWS.”
              The authoritarian right on speed.

    3. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $6000+ per month over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.
      for more info visit any tab this site..☛ http://www.easyearn45.com

    4. Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $6000+ per month over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.
      for more info visit any tab this site..☛ https://bit.ly/2WJq5Xg

    5. Article is wrong: “Well Regulated” has nothing to do with “govt-trained.” It is referring to the weaponry, and being well regulated is being equally-armed and having ALL the instruments necessary to secure a free state: rifles, pistols, cannon, war ship, etc. If you were “well-regulated” today, you would have a Comanche helicopter, a Bradley, an air craft carrier – whatever it took to match a tyrannical govt.

  2. In all of my readings of history, a militia unit has these characteristics:
    1. It cannot be compelled into service by any government. This is why the government(s) must ‘call’ the militia. The militia then decides whether to respond. This prevents the militia being used to suppress the citizenry. It also answers the sixties question “suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”.
    2. If it decides to accept a call from a government, it may pace limits on its service. It may limit service to a particular place (we will defend our county) or a particular time (we will serve until harvest time) or a particular leader (we will serve under General Confusion, but not General Motors).
    3. It is generally less effective than trained government troops.
    Historically, ‘well regulated’ may be equivalent to ‘well trained’. This would therefore be an argument against the ammunition infringements now popular with those who oppose the bill of rights.

    1. I’d say that the distinguishing feature of a ‘militia’ as opposed to other sorts of paramilitary or military groups is that a militia is armed only with those weapons freely (and legally) available to ordinary private persons. So the point of the 2nd Amendment is that law enforcement & security forces need to be well-armed and well-trained enough to do the job while still qualifying as militia – as opposed to being “standing armies” or “troops, or ships of war.”

      To put it in modern terms, the point is to prevent “militarized police.” But “militarized” is a relative term; cops are militarized by being exempted from the weapon laws that apply to everyone else. So if handcuffs are prohibited, as in NYC, then having handcuffs makes police militarized. But if the 1934 NFA (and various State laws) were repealed so that full-auto weapons were again legal for ordinary persons then police with tommy guns and M16s would not be militarized.

      1. Well, to start with, police aren’t militias. They never have been. Militias are not an arm of the *state*. They are a collective of citizenry (or anyone, really – even foreigners) assembled for collective defense.

        While I am 100% aboard the idea that police should not have anything forbidden to the ‘citizenry’ (as that’s what they are) my preferred formulation is not to limit the police, but to remove the limits on everyone else.

    2. Restoring those ideas back into the modern consciousness is why I favor bringing back a well-regulated militia. It shouldn’t be lost to a history book. It should be part of a rite of passage into adulthood. I do think militia can be compelled into training. That is the only way the entirety can ever become ‘well-trained’. But that is not at all the same as being conscripted into service or into the military – which is obviously only a mandate that can occur after some sufficient training.

      Idk the amount of training that means. Obviously not the intensity or psych conditioning of boot camp serving the military purpose of preparing the individual to kill. For the military, that training period would simply be the recruiting pool (and one that can save them a ton of budget). But some level of physical, unit, and specialist (most of which is not guns at all) training that provides a community with the capability to deal with the unexpected/urgent. Maybe six months spread over three years starting at 16 – with tax incentives for those who want to continue on in a more formally organized reserves up to some age.

      Not only does this provide a distinguishable rite of passage into adulthood which every society needs. It also IMO reduces the irrational fear of guns among those with no experience of them, the irrational fear of ‘other’ among those who grew up never interacting with ‘other’, and the influence of the Hollywood/Rambo/movie/video culture role modeling. And I suspect it would also inculcate some healthy skepticism about what govt says it can do and what it actually can do. And if it means local communities are also better able to deal with their own issues themselves so much the better

      1. It’s a good idea.
        I’ve long thought gun training should be a class in high school.
        But our rulers would never support either

        1. Why should they? Now, if you were to vote libertarian, as soon as one looter loses to another because of libertarian spoiler votes in your district, alluva sudden that you think would matter to them.

        2. Once upon a time, probably up until the late 80’s, it wasn’t uncommon for high schools to have marksmanship classes.

          In the 90’s, you could look out on the student parking lot and nearly every pickup truck had a beanfield riddle or shotgun in the gun rack.

          Moreover, one never went to school WITHOUT ones pocket knife. You’d probably need it in chem or electronics and you’d certainly need it in shop.

      2. Well regarded also means well equipped, it is not stuck to well trained. Many of the soldiers for the revolutionary war had minimal training, often relying on their skills as frontiersman and hunters. One of the reasons they were so effective is they didnt solely used standardized tactics for the time.

        1. Many of the soldiers for the revolutionary war had minimal training, often relying on their skills as frontiersman and hunters.

          Horseshit. If they lived anywhere near the frontier, then their community mustered the militia all the time. If they didn’t, then they weren’t gaining ‘frontiersman’ skills via camping trips or osmosis.
          Second – many soldiers had previous training as either part of the ‘provincials’ or as various highly drilled subsets of militia (Minutemen, ranger groups, etc).
          Third – the moment any community went ‘patriot’, they created committees of safety and the first thing those did was start mustering the militia again.
          Fourth – the most underrated event then was Valley Forge. Which created lessons re training/logistics that are even today a pretty unique skillset for the US.
          Fifth – if they managed to avoid training in all the above, then chances are they were part of the ‘militia units’ which completely sucked except in very local defense.

          I’d welcome a discussion about whether a militia can replace a standing army. That WAS the primary purpose of the 2nd. But that failed early – and none of the crowd obsessed about weaponry has the slightest real interest in that purpose – and that isn’t what I’m really looking to restore either.

          There were many militia functions that succeeded to some degree for quite a long time – nightwatchmen/police, fire, natural disaster, search-and-rescue, pandemic/disease – and other more modern functions – grid restoration, logistics breakdown, etc – where a militia reserve could be quite effective, cheaper for taxpayers, and an option for people to pay-in-time/kind rather than merely in cash. Those don’t require – or instill – some obsession/fear about guns/weaponry.

          1. Lol. Sorry for your lack of knowledge. Most of the minutemen were hunters and frontiersman. Not sure how you deny this fact. They did not use formal military tactics of the time.

            1. You asserted that they weren’t really trained. The Minutemen were highly drilled and trained. They had a formal chain of command known even to – drumroll – Paul Revere. Which provides the obvious explanation for his ride. He wasn’t randomly riding his horse around yelling ‘The Brits are coming. The sky is falling. The end of the world is nigh’ hoping a ‘frontiersman’ (and the frontier was a few hundred miles away from Boston by then) would hear him. He was notifying their chain of command. And golly, they mustered exactly where they drilled. On Lexington Green and seven other militias further out at Concord. Which contained the powderhouse and crew-level equipment (cannons) they trained on and supplied themselves from – the location of which was known to them all regardless of which town they actually lived in – and known to the British too – which is why the British were going there in the first place.

              They did not use formal military tactics of the time.

              That doesn’t mean they weren’t TRAINED. ‘Frontier’ and asymmetry tactics were part of colonial militia training at least as early as Benjamin Church 100 years before the revolution. Formal full-time ‘ranger’ units – Lovewell, Gorham, Rogers, Danks, Burke, Putnam, Knowles, Stark – were in most colonies and they also provided the soldiers who trained everyone else in the militia. Hell – even the Loyalists had at least four ranger units (Simcoe, Butler, Brown, Rogers2) because they too had been part of militia training in that.

              You R’s have the fucking weird notion that as long as one has the proper ideology, then training and organization happens by fucking magic or being appointed by god or some such BS. And if you are pointing to some kids link, I can only assume you yourself have never studied anything that’s a bit more advanced. The reason militias did not form the bulk of the Continental Army is because a)that Army was fighting far from their home and b)it was under the command of the Continental Congress not their town/state.

          2. Heres a kids site for you buddy.

            “The Continental Army regulars received European-style military training later in the American Revolutionary War, but the militias did not get much of this. Rather than fight formal battles in the traditional dense lines and columns, they were better when used as irregulars, primarily as skirmishers and sharpshooters.”

            https://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Minutemen_%28militia%29

            Let me know when you learn the basics and we can move to more robust material.

            1. To morons like jfree there was no difference between Militiamen and The Continential Army.

              1. Where do you get that from. His post just above makes exactly that distinction.

                1. LC1789 is a PROVEN psycho FRAUD … I got this in an email, after he launched an unprovoked, lying, sack-of-shit assault on me.
                  HE SLURPS AT THE GUMMINT TEAT … BUT EVEN CRAZIER IS HOW HE “JUSTIFIES” BEING SUCH A MOOCH

                  Behold the Self-Righteous Hypocrisy of loveconstitution1789 …. slurping at the gummint teat! … Why? …. HE’S ENTITLED … but HIS OWN FATHER IS “SELFISH AS SHIT” BY DEFENDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY HE AT LEAST PAID FOR.

                  This is ONE … SICK …. FUCK

                  https://reason.com/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist/#comment-7141520

                  My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

                  I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

                  TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if it lines HIS pocket!
                  Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … DEFENDS his own teat-sucking (OMG)

                  WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE, GOOBER???
                  BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
                  What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES that federal debt steals from our future … from their own children? … WITHOUT THEIR VOTE!

                  Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

                  HE’D CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.” …. a self-righteous MOOCH

                  The NEW Entitlement Mentality. The Alt-Right — self-righteous goobers of today’s GOP.
                  The left borrows trillions for free stuff
                  The right borrows trillions for free tax cuts
                  Two sides of the same statist coin.
                  Left – Right = Zero

                  Will this “trigger” the precious snowflake again?

          3. Horseshit. If they lived anywhere near the frontier, then their community mustered the militia all the time.

            Yeah, that’s horseshit, too. If there were any musters, it was to check and make sure their weapons were still functioning.

            If you honestly think they were doing drill at each of these, you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought. It’s not an accident that the organization of the Army largely sucked until von Steuben wrote up the Blue Book. You even bring this up, and have no fucking clue that you’re contradicting your own argument.

            1. You are a complete ignoramus. All frontier communities were stockaded forts. They mustered weekly. The preparations including stocking up for sieges, repairing fortifications. Knowing that they would be surrounded and outnumbered with no reinforcements from anywhere in every defensive battle. If they lost, the entire fort and their family would be wiped out. If they won, they would have to immediately turn around and attack nearby settlements and wipe them out. There had already been two all-out frontier wars between 1763-1766 and 1774 with dozens of raids.

              And the frontier delivered prob the biggest victory of the revolution. Not independence (easily reversible had the US been forced back east of the 1763 settlement line) but the recognition by the Brits that US territory was everything east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes (though that still took a 2nd war to stick). Very few Continentals ever fought near a frontier – even though that land was how they were ultimately paid. Nor did frontiersmen head east and leave their families.

              1. People didn’t live in forts. They lived in the countryside and retreated to the fortification when needed.

              2. All frontier communities were stockaded forts.

                Citation needed.

        2. “Well-regulated” means neither “Well equipped” or “Well trained”, though it may encompass elements of both. Nor does it mean, “imbued with regulations, rules, policies, practices and drills.”

          Well-regulated means, “In good working order.” Like a well-regulated household, farm, pocket watch or wardrobe.

          —8< —
          The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
          From: Brian T. Halonen

          The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

          • 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
          • 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
          • 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
          • 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
          • 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
          • 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

          1. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

            Nonsense. The phrase well-regulated militia comes directly from the Articles of Confederation – every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.

            Art1 Sec8 of the Constitution To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. is precisely to reallocate that power more in Congress’ hands. All those elements are what constitute and are summarized as ‘well-regulated’.

            There is no notion ever that this isn’t in govt purview. And clearly the Constitution was intended to be MORE centralized than the Articles. The fear of anti-Federalists, correct as it turned out, was that Congress would fulfill its enumerated power re a standing army and would fail to fulfill</strong its enumerated power re the militia. That it would effectively disarm the state militia and leave a standing army in the vacuum. The 2ndA was intended to explicitly limit Congress' ability to achieve the end-result of a disarmed state militia.

            Looking for the individual right of self/family defense in the 2A is the wrong place. Under no social contract interpretation is that right ever given up to any government. Period. If you insist on finding that in the Constitution maybe its the 9thA.

            But for those who are yapping about tyranny, insurrection, and the individual right to own tanks/nukes, the proper interpretation of the 2ndA is actually to look to Art1Sec8 and recognize that Congress has failed to fulfill its enumerated obligations re militia. And perhaps to also advocate for reducing its overfulfillment of 'standing army' enumeration.

            1. The states have fulfilled their obligations re: Well-regulated militias. That’s what the National Guard is. All the state guards, which under normal circumstances are controlled by the states, have standardized training and equipment across the various state guard units so the can directly interface and support – even lead – regular Army (and Air Force) operations. This is all supported by Congress by budgeting money to provide these state guards equipment and training.

              Several states still maintain individual state militias also. Those these vary greatly in quality and most are, at best, good for search and rescue or some Coast Guard police level duties.

            2. You are an idiot.

              The phrase well-regulated militia comes directly from the Articles of Confederation

              Where do you think the Articles of Confederation got the phrase from? Do you think they originated it, made it up out of thin air?

              You might want to re-read the very post you were replying to.

              • 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
              • 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

            3. Good point. The Articles are nearly as neglected as the 1774 Articles of Association that barred slavery before there was a Declaration, Articles of Confederation or Constitution. The blog that covers these topics is ProgressingAmerica on Blogspot. This is a pretty objective source of verifiable information. But on 2A, the Bill of Rights argument hit Physics Today in ’86 as the commies pushed Freeze, Surrender, No Nukes… in everybody’s faces. Soviet Communism collapsed 5 yrs later much as Robert Heinlein had predicted.

            4. You’re confusing the unorganized militia with the Organized Militia. A distinction that can be found in the writings of the Founding Fathers.

              1. I’m not confusing the two. I agree that Congress has no power to disarm the people under the 2A. But the purpose of that was to ensure that the ‘unorganized militia’ would be able to self-organize back into an organized militia if Congress ever failed in its duty to keep the militia organized.

                There was never any notion that this was some individualist screed that the only thing standing between liberty and tyranny is the individual hero and his personal pocket nuke. The phrase well-regulated militia was used precisely because it had a meaning and a context then – referring directly back to the Articles of Confederation.

                If a STATE saw that the feds were being tyrannical (or were failing in what was seen as their new obligation under the Constitution to provide the basic framework for states to defend themselves) that the state would resume their previous obligation under the Articles to maintain a well-regulated militia to counter that. And would be able to accomplish that because their people had not been disarmed. A status quo ante. The Constitution does not leave it up to the individual to decide whether the feds are tyrannical. That’s clearly nonsense. It is the state – not the individual – who is the ‘target audience’ for the 2A.

          2. Excellent comment, nSpectre.

          3. The OED is concerned mainly with general uses of language, not specialist usage like the law. “Regulate”, “regulation”, “regulated”–all these were common legal terms with a meaning very close to today. And the constitution is a legal document. Prefacing it with “well-” does not shift the meaning.

            Searching on Google books for 18th century works, I see “well-regulated” in Adam Smith’s wealth of nations, when talking about paper money. The context shows it would make no sense if it meant “in good working order”; instead, it’s clear means strictly regulated in the modern sense, with regards to supply, with funds backing it, lack of susceptibility to counterfitting, etc. (also, interestingly, he uses it for a standing army, saying a well-regulated standing army is preferable to a militia in every way!)

            Try it–Google books, set a time range of the document to, say, no later than 1/1/1790. Add some other terms associated with typical legal language. It’s not difficult to find other contemporaneous works where “well-regulated” makes no sense except in a modern sense of regulated.

            Originalism is concerned with interpreting laws in their original, well-understood legal sense, not in a general literary sense. Looking a word up in the OED does the legal philosophy an injustice.

            1. Terrible comment, Allen Garvin.

            2. Then again, we have an old term describing multi-barreled firearms where the barrels fire to the same point of aim: they are “regulated.” This seems to have more relevance to a fighting force shooting effectively at the enemy, than it has to government regulation of who can have what.

      3. I do think militia can be compelled into training. That is the only way the entirety can ever become ‘well-trained’. But that is not at all the same as being conscripted into service . . .

        Compelling is compelling. Period. And ‘compelling into training’ is just one step from ‘compelling military service’ which is one step from ‘compelling fighting in foreign adventures for someone else’s benefit’.

        I’d prefer not to take that first step at all.

        1. And ‘compelling into training’ is just one step from ‘compelling military service’ which is one step from ‘compelling fighting in foreign adventures for someone else’s benefit’. I’d prefer not to take that first step at all.

          Yes like everything its a slippery slope. But don’t pretend that we aren’t, right now, in a multidecadal war worldwide with no end game, no goals, that has cost us trillions, from which there is seemingly no escape, which is turning all our previous friends into neutrals and many neutrals into enemies, killing many many thousands of civilians per year – and which hasn’t even raised a peep of protest here. We are in this place imo because for 99% of the population there is absolutely nothing to see there. No involvement whatsoever – and no risk until planes start flying into buildings in the US. And when planes DO fly into buildings, the only thing our peeps can do is – pretty much nothing except die and strip off in line at the airport. One plane where a few folks had played on sports teams (ie no skills whatsoever but good unit training) and decided to do something futile. Other than that – pray for professionals.

          Why are we in this situation now? Because those who WANT permawar knew that the only way to achieve it was to eliminate protest about it. They succeeded in eliminating protest. And gave us both permawar and a nation of fat sheep.

          I would much rather take that one step of compelling into training — with its option of then massively protesting the nanosecond fed govt tries to make that training ‘pay off’ with service to it outside our local communities. Because I am very confident that if we risk something, we will likely protest slippery steps. If that protest works, we will end the forever wars. If it doesn’t, then we have already lost our liberty and we just don’t realize it.

          1. So the solution is compelled military service?

            Dude, that’s not a slippery slope – you just jumped right off the cliff.

      4. So jfree you really support some sort of quasi conscription? I thought we were against that.

        I do think it is the job of parents to do such things if they choose including basic firearms. Like teaching them to swim or drive a car.

        1. I don’t sell this as libertarian and obviously I’m not at all anarcho. It is perfectly ok in classical liberal. And even if it doesn’t fit an ideology – so what.

          Nor do I really care one whit about exacting some penalty. For that age group and given those goals, peer pressure and the benefits of that broader training and discipline with a modern sense of a militia and a community – would likely get 80+% participation. That’s a great outcome.

      5. Obviously not the intensity or psych conditioning of boot camp serving the military purpose of preparing the individual to kill.

        Honestly, that’s not what bootcamp does. Basic training isn’t like Full Metal Jacket. There is actually very little ‘preparing the individual to kill’. Mainly because its not necessary.

      6. Mandatory service is slavery. Give school credits and I’d maybe back it, except echo do you think is doing the training? You think there’s be no indoctrination?

    3. Historically, by well regulated, colonial Americans meant well armed, with gear comparable to standard issue, no 17th-century matchlocks.

  3. 5 out of 6 guns in the article’s art are Russian…

    More proof that Reason are Russian colluding closet commies!

  4. I’m not sure the article does justice to the contemporary meaning of “well regulated” during the time of the amendment’s drafting.

    1. The left intentionally redefines words in order to change the meaning of plain language into something they prefer.

      1. Or just make it’s meaning debatable enough to render it more vulnerable.

      2. Go back to The Federalist with that nonsense.

        I bet next you’ll try to tell us the Roe v. Wade SUPER-PRECEDENT has no basis in the text of the Constitution, and was just “the left” making stuff up.

        #SaveRoe
        #OverturnHeller

        1. Don’t bother to reply to my posts if you think I will read them. I skip over everything that you shit onto this board. #suck my balls

          1. What’s wrong? Do my contributions not live up to the standard you set with your 9,000th regurgitation of TOLERANT PEOPLE DON’T TOLERATE INTOLERANCE?

            Hmmmmmmm……..

            After careful consideration, I have decided I’ll keep promoting the Koch / Reason left-libertarian message wherever I want.

            1. Too stupid; didn’t read.

              1. Oh wow. It’s even worse than I thought.

                sarcasmic has been hammering “Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance” into the ground for at least 7 years.

                #sarcasmicNeedsNewMaterial

                1. Ooooh that left a mark!

      3. The {political Left is hardly alone in that practice; every Social Elite in recorded history has done the same, when they could get away with it.

        I bring this up not to dismiss the behavior of the Left as harmless, but to puncture the myth that they are in any manner unique, or even rare. The Political Left are just one more batch of would-be Aristocrats; Guillotine bait. Dangerous, but tiresome.

        1. +1000000000000000

    2. True, just as the term in the commerce clause meant ‘to keep regular’ so there were no trade barriers or tariffs between the states.

      1. It’s odd we now use the commerce clause to force states to allow abortion or to restrict gun sales…. yet we do not use it in cases where states ban travel to other states.

        1. No state has banned travel to other states. They have not even banned their employees from traveling to other states. What they HAVE done is said “We will not PAY anybody to travel to the following States.”. No ‘travel allowance’, no Per Diem, no State sponsored junkets to the Interdicted States.

          Silly, yes. Unconstitutional, no.

          1. No, but some states (like NY) impede interstate commerce in fuel between other states.

        2. It’s odd we now use the commerce clause to force states to allow abortion/blockquote>WTF?
          It’s the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
          This part.

          nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Life is the right of the fetal child
          Liberty of the woman.
          The two ate equal anyhow, both being unalienable
          But this also mandates that the rights of BOTH parties, the fetus and the woman, are protected equally.

          Specifically, it is the woman’s right to PRIVACY, in the ruling. THIS gets the “invented rights” claim by the uneducated. I just ask them how THEY define liberty, as a right, Most give up. Others create masterful word twisting for definitions that ae … laughable.

          The whole the “judges inventing laws” thing iis based on ignorance (and./or brainwashing Rights have been RECOGNIZED or ACKNOWLEDGED by judges and tribunals since long before our founding NOBODY else is empowered to do so..

  5. If the right to bear arms cannot be limited based on membership in a well-regulated militia, why is it possible to limit the type of arms to which people have a right based on whether or not the weapons are used by a militia?

    1. It shouldn’t be but the courts have decided otherwise.

    2. Think of it this way:

      ‘Since we want to have a large pool of people who can form a militia at need, we hereby protect the right of the people to keep the kind of arms that a militia would use. There is no need for ALL these people to belong to a militia full time, we have faith that the kind of responsible people we would want in a militia will form one when the situation requires it.’

    3. If the right to bear arms cannot be limited based on membership in a well-regulated militia,

      NEVER true,

      why is it possible to limit the type of arms to which people have a right based on whether or not the weapons are used by a militia?

      Because the weapons were essentially limited FOR militia duty, intentionally, and the only relevant militia was at ratification.

      Technically, 2A was created to protect the militia, as documented in the original ruling in what weapons are protected.

      The dominant faction at the time favored a citizens militia, and opposed a standing army. The fear was that a later government might disarm citizens then created a standing army.

      In this decision the Founders KNOWINGLY limited the protected weapons, as stated in the 1939 ruling Miller, and affirmed my Scaia, as “weapons in common use at the time, brought from home for militia duty.

      That excludes military-style weapons, simply because there was no market for them. The vast majority of citizens would not keep them in their home, obviously, and they were never in common use at or before our founding.

      For rifles, the protection is for MODERN versions of … the musket. A single-shot rifle that SOME call a hunting rifle. This is WHY the NRA was helpless against the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 long years. Being constitutional since 1939, it could ONLY be repealed or expire. There were ZERO laws to repeal it. The ban had a 10-year life span, and it expired.

  6. “Their argument is based on that amendment’s reference to ‘a well regulated militia,’ which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government.”

    So the 2A gives the military a right to be armed? Without it the government wouldn’t have any guns? People make that argument with a straight face?

    1. The Political Left makes a great many risible arguments with a straight face.

    2. Amendment II.
      A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed

    3. Not sute who Sarcasmic quoted, but it LIES

      well regulated militia,’ which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government.”

      Totally bass ackwards.
      1) The militia was intended to AVOID a military (standing army).
      2) The militia defending America was comprised of STATE militias. They would defend America of activated by the federal government, much like states activate their militias now,

  7. So why can’t we own landmines and surface to air missiles? I’m sure the Russian govt would love to help arm the good people of America.

    1. LOL! Great comment!

      #TrumpRussia
      #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    2. For the same reason you can’t own a handgun, because you’re a degenerate kiddie fucker in felony possession of kiddie porn.

    3. You can with enough money and the proper clearances and paperwork.

    4. “So why can’t we own landmines and surface to air missiles? I’m sure the Russian govt would love to help arm the good people of America.”

      The observation that the line might be drawn arbitrarily does not imply that the line should be drawn arbitrarily or that it should be drawn arbitrarily so as to exclude AR-15s or semiautomatic pistols.

      If the First Amendment doesn’t protect underage pr0n, but does that mean it doesn’t or shouldn’t protect anything–and we should draw the line wherever we want?

      The correct answer is “no”.

      If you want to sue for your right to own surface to air missiles, go ahead. What’s stopping you? If the government steps in and violates your right to own surface to air missiles, does that mean it’s okay to violate the rights of other people who seek lesser weapons like AR-15s, too?

      The correct answer is “no”. If you were raped by a corrections officer in jail and you were in jail on a bogus charge, that doesn’t mean everyone else should be falsely imprisoned and raped by the government, too. Only socialists think that way.

      1. I think I broke your brain Ken. The line is drawn arbitrarily by the very people who claim the amendment draws no line. What’s a leser weapon? Is that part of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re just full of shit.

        1. Could you explain how you think Ken is “full of shit”, because having read his post it seems you have entirely missed his point.

          1. What’s a lesser weapon? Where is Ken getting this from? Is the 2nd amendment right determined by where a weapon might fall in a contrived hierarchy of weapons?

            1. Learn what an Army Regular was and get back to us.

              1. Nah I think I’ll go play golf.

                1. Is that a euphemism for fucking kids, kiddie fucker?

                2. Sounds rights. You choose ignorance willingly.

                3. “Nah I think I’ll go play golf.”

                  Do they let you kiddies on the course on Sunday?

        2. This is what swine do when they find pearls.

            1. More kiddie fucking from you kiddie fucker shreeky.

        3. “Pod
          November.3.2019 at 9:31 am
          “I think I broke your brain Ken….”

          Whatever you do =/= “thought”.

    5. Keep proving your peak was an 8th grade public school education. Learn the difference between arms and ordnance.

    6. Rights are not unlimited. The First Amendment right of free speech does not protect yelling fire in a theater or shouting in someone’s ear, among other things. Where is the line on 2A? Interesting question, but no one who does not take 2A seriously as an individual right has any place in that discussion, any more than they would on 1A if they didn’t believe in freedom of speech to start with.

      1. “Rights are not unlimited. The First Amendment right of free speech does not protect yelling fire in a theater or shouting in someone’s ear, among other things. Where is the line on 2A? Interesting question”

        The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to shoot people indiscriminately. It only protects your right to choose to own a gun. If you use your gun to violate someone’s rights, you can and should be held accountable in a court of law. It’s the same way with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn’t protect the freedom to violate other people’s rights with your speech. If and when you use your speech to violate someone’s rights–say fraud and violent threats–you can and should be tried by a jury of your peers.

        Notice, it is in appropriate to arbitrarily decide that there’s something special about crowded theaters or AR-15s that creates an arbitrary exception. There is no exception like that. Neither amendment every protected the freedom to violate other people’s rights. They simply protected the right to make your own choices.

        Because I can choose my own speech doesn’t mean I’m free to violate other people’s rights with it, and because I can choose to own a gun doesn’t mean I’m free to violate other people’s rights with it. In neither case is it appropriate for the government to preemptively violate people’s right to choose what they say or whether to own a gun. If you want to punish them after they’ve violated someone’s rights, you have to charge them with a crime and convict them with a jury of their peers.

        Violating someone’s right to purchase a gun when they haven’t violated anyone’s rights violates the Second Amendment–just like making it illegal for people to talk inside a theater for fear that they might yell “fire” violates the First Amendment. You can’t punish people preemptively for crimes they’ve never committed–not if you want to be harmony with the Constitution.

        1. Well explained +1000

        2. So, there’s no line? Nukes? If you’re arguing for an individual right to possess nukes, you are a threat to 2A, not a supporter. If you’re not arguing for nukes, then you admit there’s a line, not connected to whether you actually use them to violate the rights of others?

          1. (Period, not question mark.)

            1. Not sure why my comment was flagged. So here it is again. Ken Shultz are you saying there’s no line? Nukes? If you are claiming an individual right to possess nukes, the anti-gun propagandists will be happy to quote you for their purposes, and it WILL serve their purposes. If not, then you are acknowledging that there is a line somewhere, not dependent on actually using a weapon to violate others’ rghts.

              1. Back in the day, individuals owned warships, ones capable of lying off in the harbor and shelling an entire city into ruins. Nukes are an interesting question. I suppose the fact that they are beyond an individual’s ability to manufacture makes it moot, but still an interesting thought experiment.

          2. “So, there’s no line? Nukes? If you’re arguing for an individual right to possess nukes, you are a threat to 2A, not a supporter. If you’re not arguing for nukes, then you admit there’s a line, not connected to whether you actually use them to violate the rights of others?”

            There’s a term for when you point to extreme implications that are so ridiculous, it’s supposed to discredit someone’s argument.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

            Suffice it to say that because you need to find some way other than violating the Second Amendment to stop individuals from obtaining nuclear weapons and posing an existential threat to people of the United States, that doesn’t mean you should be free to violate their Second Amendment right to choose to own and carry a gun.

            Incidentally, the military isn’t violating the Second Amendment when it confiscates weapons from captured Taliban fighters either. They’re acting within their constitutional mandate to protect the rights of the American people from military threats. If you can’t think of a rationale for depriving individuals of nuclear weapons outside the purview of the Second Amendment, then you’re probably not trying very hard to look at the issue objectively.

            And if you think treating average American buyers of AR-15s and semiautomatic pistols like they’re the Taliban is appropriate because nuclear weapons are scary, then you’ve gone off the deep end.

            1. I think semi-auto rifles and pistols with detachable magazines clearly fall under the protection of 2A, and there’s a pretty decent chance that the Supreme Court will so rule in the next few years—unless anti-gun propagandists succeed in convincing most people that supporters of 2A are nuts. Then pols will pass bans and more restrictive laws, courts will uphold them, and don’t imagine that you will successfully take up arms to defend your rights against the majority will. Suggesting that individual possession of nukes might be protected by 2A will not help our cause. The AR-15, semi-auto AK-47, and similar hand-carried individual weapons can serve the purpose of power in the hands of the people against the prospect of tyranny. Guerrilla tactics have proven quite successful against occupying armies.

              1. I think semi-auto rifles and pistols with detachable magazines clearly fall under the protection of 2A,

                ONE MORE TIME: (on the semi-automatics)
                1) Not since 1939 (US v Miller)
                2) Reaffirmed ijn Heller, by the originalist Scalia.

                https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995612

                That’s Part Four (Heller)
                Miller is in Part Two ,,., of a five-part post, nearly 4,000 words, correcting all the lies, misinformation and brainwashing of the gun-manufacturers lobby .. with links for both relevant rulings, including page numbers making it easy for anyone to confirm … since *I* have nothing to hide. Truth matters. To some of us.

      2. 1a does let you scream fire on a theater. It doesnt protect you from the consequences of the actions. Feel free to go into an empty theater and yell it.

      3. ONE MORE TIME

        This link is to a 5-parts comment hat EXPOSES all the Second Amendment myths and lies. including Reason on this page

        There are two relevant SCOTUS rulings ,
        1) Scalia’s Heller decision.
        2) Which affirmed US v Miller (1939) on which weapons are protected by 2A

        You’ll also learn, if you don’t already know … WHY the NRA was TOTALLY powerless against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban … for 10 long years, until it expired. It could only be repealed or expire

        Almost 4,000 words, because so much bullshit and/or ignorance.

        It has links and page numbers. to easily confirm my accuracy … for those who CARE about facts instead of memorized soundbites, programmed by the ruling elites.

        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        At last count, I’ve attracted 83 personal assaults for DARING to post the truth ,,, NONE has even bothered to address ANY of several dozen points. Mostly like Trump screaming FAKE NEWS when he gets burned. You know the type 🙂

      4. HUH???

        Where is the line on 2A?

        Established 80 years ago … 1939 … US v Miller … affirmed by Scalia in Heller,
        And affirmed by YOU, two seconds before you typed THAT.

        Interesting question, but no one who does not take 2A seriously as an individual right has any place in that discussion

        It was ruled an individual right … by Scalia …. in Heller …. the same ruling where he both affirmed and defended the limited weapons protected by 2A (since 1939) … and NOW as an individual right … the same rulings you refuse to see,

        any more than they would on 1A if they didn’t believe in freedom of speech to start with

        You said this two seconds earlier.

        WALSTAD ORIGINAL
        Rights are not unlimited. The First Amendment right of free speech does not protect yelling fire in a theater or shouting in someone’s ear

        .Two seconds later, rights ARE unlimited ,.. and speech NO LONGER has limits!

        any more than they would on 1A if they didn’t believe in freedom of speech to start with.

        Finally,

        but no one who does not take 2A seriously as an individual right has any place in that discussion

        Scalia DOES. If ANYONE has no place, it would be anyone who revises the Constitution, and centuries of Natural Law … in 2 seconds … after refusing to read the proof posted here, simplified to only the key parts.

        So, I cannot be bothered to give you the link, yet again. But, see if I reverse myself
        on that, in … oh … TEN seconds 🙂
        firmed by Scalia in Heller,
        And affirmed by YOU, two seconds before you typed THAT.

        Interesting question, but no one who does not take 2A seriously as an individual right has any place in that discussion

        Umm, iIt was ruled an individual right … by Scalia …. in Heller …. the same ruling whee heaffirend as defend same ruing where he both affirmed and defended WHICH weapons are defended as an individual right

        A ruling you REFUSE to read … a 5-part post, on this page, with every most contentious portion … links and page numbers to each part of the ruling, So I won’t bother giving you the link again.

        any more than they would on 1A if they didn’t believe in freedom of speech to start with

        Umm, you said this two seconds earlier.

        WALSTAD ORIGINAL
        Rights are not unlimited. The First Amendment right of free speech does not protect yelling fire in a theater or shouting in someone’s ear

        .Two seconds later, rights ARE unlimited ,.. and speech no longer has limits. hmmm

        .

        any more than they would on 1A if they didn’t believe in freedom of speech to start with.

        Finally,

        but no one who does not take 2A seriously as an individual right has any place in that discussion

        Scalia DOES. You DO NOT
        If ANYONE has no place, it would be anyone who revises the Constitution, and centuries of Natural Law … in 2 seconds.

        You keep REFUSING to read the Scalia PROOF I posted here … so I’m not about to give you THAT link again.
        But, see if I reverse myself in … oh … TEN seconds 🙂

      5. “The First Amendment right of free speech does not protect yelling fire in a theater”

        What if the movie theater is on fire? Would you not pull the fire alarm?

        If the intent is to cause harm then no, don’t yell fire. If the intent is to save lives then yes, pull the fire alarm (or yell fire).

    7. When the 2A was written we peasants could own cannon, as in weapons that could sink ships. Weapons don’t have magical properties cause violence.

      1. Umm, Scalia’s Heller confirms that “dangerous and unusual weapons” have always been controlled. AND 2A is EXPLICITLY limited to
        a) weapons in common use at ratification
        b) brought from home for militia duty.
        c) since the US v Miller ruling, in 1939.

        But I’m open to any evidence you may provide that
        a) peasants could afford to buy such cannons
        b) keep them at home (WHY?)
        c) and roll them to militia service

    8. Well, strictly speaking, perhaps we should be able to. Or, one could argue that the right to ‘keep and bear’ arms would limit said arms to those that could be carried and maintained by a single person. And, I suppose, we could argue whether ‘munitions’ are included in the category of ‘arms’, though I don’t think that any definition of Munitions that didn’t include ammunition in general would be kinda silly, and a right to keep and bear Arms without a right to keep and carry ammunition would be ridiculous.

      Lost in the above is the cold fact that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the citizenry had unobstructed access to military grade arms. Which fact the Progressive Left inn general and the Gun Grabbers in particular are DESPERATE to keep out of the public consciousness. Because it leaves them with only the “The Constitution is a Living Document” argument, thee answer to which is “Damned right; there’s an amendment procedure right IN the thing. Which means, if you want too change the Constitution, you have single legal means to do so. Put up or shut up. Propose an Amendment, or drop dead.”

      1. That’s laughably wrong on all counts..
        I mean, I peed my pants laughing that “military grade weapons” were in common use at the time, and were brought from home for militia duty … unless you include muskets as “military grade”: which is totally useless whatever the hell you’re trying to say, since 2A has been limited to the modern equivalent of those muskets since 1939 (for rifles) . and reaffirmed by Scalia in Heller

        As proven here. In immense detail.:
        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        the Progressive Left in general

        Their hopeless brainwashing on the glories of of socialized medicine … are about equal to right-wing brainwashing on 2A, such as your own here.

        As libertarians have known for over a half-century now:
        Left – Right = Zero
        And a growing majority of Americans now agrees.
        So, keep hugging each other, deep in both tribal caves, since most of us don’t really give a fuck what Team Red and Team Blue are so eagerly brainwashed about.

    9. Because amoral people with more guns will kill you if you do.

    10. So why can’t we own landmines and surface to air missiles?

      Well, Pod…unless you’re one of those James Bond movie “Super Villains” YOU COULDN’T FUCKIN’ AFFORD THEM ANYWAY!!!!!!

      Why do some people insist on posing this question like it really has any relevance…?

    11. Why cant Americans have armored vehicles, rocket launchers, mines, explosives?

      See Tannerite.

  8. These idiots really believe ,after armed rebellion against a oppressive government , really wanted only the new one to have all the guns. This shows that they are just rewriting history to fit with their true goals.

      1. Scaia’s Heller says three or you are bat-shit crazy. totally brainwashed, or just bellowing blowhards. And he was reaffirming a 1939 ruling.

        Here’s the PROOF. You’ll jusy go ape-shit, the link is for anyone who values facts over uninformed babbling

        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        That’s five parts, nearly 4000 words. on both relevant rulings, to squash all the typical bullshit. Links to even the RULING PAGE NUMBERS, to simplify other truth seekers.

        And now, listening to conservatards on the glories of the Second Amendment, is like listening to progtards on yhe glories of socialized medicine.

        As libertarians have known for over a half-century: Left – Right – Zero. A growing majority of Americans now agrees.

  9. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, libertarians should support — and the Constitution permits — much more comprehensive gun safety laws than we currently have on the books. And Michael Hihn has been promoting libertarian ideas since before most of us here were even born.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. Personally, I wouldn’t care if you blew your head off, bot . You are making me rethink letting idiots and intel’s have personal access to firearms. Hmmm, 18th century slavers on the one hand. Right-wingers going postal on the other.

      1. This is what swine grunt when they have nothing persuasive to say.

      2. Hey look, shreeky the degenerate kiddie fucker has switched to his other sock so he can impotently rage against a parody account that he has unsuccessfully tried to replicate.

        1. switched to his other sock so he can impotently rage

          Yeah, I hate when people do that. Well put, Viola Davis, Anna Gunn, Ron Howard, Maksim Whoeverthefuck, Matthew McConaughey, and anybody else I’m forgetting.

          1. He doesnt deny he switches socks. The pedo does.

            1. I’ve never seen him confirm or deny it. It’s just weird that somebody who switches socks one or more times per day would complain about people socking.

              Of course, it’s even weirder that people bother to sock at all, but that’s a separate topic.

              1. “complain”

                Except he wasn’t. Noticing isn’t complaining.

          2. CONSERVATARDS ARE ARE AS EASILY BRAINWASHED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS PROGTARDS ARE ON SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! ALSO LIKE PROGTARDS … SEE FOR YOURSELF ALL THE WHINY PUSSIES WHO HAVE NOTHING BUT BULLYING, ASSAULTS AND NAME-CALLING … NEVER ANYTHING OF SUBSTABNCE WHEN THEIR ASSES HAVE BEEN SMASHED. THE AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY.

            SO LET’S SMASH SOME MORE ASSES!!!

            ==============

            Second Amendment – propaganda and misinformation
            Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

            Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
            5.3 United States
            3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
            1.7 Canada
            0.9 UK

            it getS worse! ((SMIRK)

            1. … WORSE (smirk)
              FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
              Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
              Mass Shootings Per year
              UK = 0.2 per year
              US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
              But YOU “think” gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMG
              (Australia had one in 23 years).

              Inconvenient questions:

              1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH

              2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

              3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

              4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

              NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of he Authoritarian Right.

              Left – Right = Zero
              Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
              Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking and bellowing.

              =============

              COUNT HOW MANY THUGS CANNOT ANSWER THOSE SIMPLE QUESTIONS … OR ANSWER AS CRAZY AS ALWAYS. (sneer)

      3. HEY ASSSHOLES. Here’s PROOF that your full of shit on the second amendment.
        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        Do we believe Antonin Scalia? Or conservards who are brainwashed on 2A as progtards are on socialized medicine.

      4. WHEN AUTHORITARIAN THUGS ARE CRUSHED ON THE ISSUES THEY … GO FULL THUG … WHINE LIKE PUSSIES ,.,. BELLOW LIKE BLOWHARDS …. BABBLE ABOUT SOCKS … BUT NEVER., EVER, HAVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE.

        BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE!
        JUST WATCH THEM HUGGING EACH OTHER FOR … SOLACE AND COMFORTING THEIR WOUNDS.

        The new Know-Nothings.
        Now dominate both left and right .,… since most Americans now reject both eagerly brainwashed goober tribes.

        They compete to be the nastiest.
        ADULTS compete to provide the most DOCUMENTED PROOF … WITH LINKS TO SOURCES. This next link DETAILS all the bullshit bhy brainwahewd guntards … with ACTUAL CITES OF SCOTUS RULINGS … LINKED TO EACH RULING ,… WITH PAGE NUMBERS FOR EASY CHECKING. *I* have nothing to hide, like the snarling thugs do,
        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        AND documents all the misinformation and outright lies by Reason here. For those with The BALLS to check.

    2. “According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn”

      You misspelled “lefty bullshit artist”.

  10. Actually, the term “well regulated” in those days meant “well supplied”. Once you realize that the language of the Second Amendment makes perfect sense! If the citizens can’t have arms then, when the militia is called up it will have no arms. The citizens need arms to supply the militia.

  11. “Is the larger, unorganized militia “well regulated”? Probably not if understood the way the Framers would have: as a wide body of the American people prepared to take up arms in defense of themselves and the state.”

    In the way the framers used the term, “well regulated”, it meant that they were well practiced in the regular use of their arms. We still talk about “regular” army and “irregulars” in this sense–so the use of the term in this sense isn’t exactly archaic.

    Anyway, here’s an example of that use of the term:

    “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss . . . .

    If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

    —-The Federalist Papers : No. 29

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    Elsewhere in the same document, Hamilton uses the term “well trained” interchangeably with “well regulated”. The point is that people should be free to own and use their arms in daily life so that average Americans won’t need to be trained if and when it becomes necessary to their arms in defense of themselves and their liberties against a standing army.

    Again, the framers were entirely aware of the difference between what we still call “regular army” and “irregulars”. I’ve never been through basic training, but I understand an important part of it is learning how to shoot your weapon accurately and how to clean and care for your weapon. For civilians who recreate with AR-15s, these skills are learned without the need of military training–and not having those skills is one of the biggest reasons why regular army typically run over irregulars in direct confrontations.

    It may be of interest that it was Alexander Hamilton who wrote this defense of what came to be the Second Amendment. Alexander Hamilton was George Washington’s right hand man. He knew a thing or two about using irregulars to take on regular army–from defeating Hessians at the Battle of Trenton to defeating the British at Yorktown. To suggest that he had no idea that the Second Amendment would be used to defend the private ownership of something like an AR-15 is ludicrous. As Doherty properly implies, the right to own an AR-15 is better protected than the right to own a pistol.

    In regards to the ownership of pistols, once you’ve established that people have a right to not only own firearms but “bear” or carry them, anyone nitpicking about pistols is probably just looking for a reason to ban them. I’ve come to the point that when I see someone who wants to ban guns talking about the meaning of this or that term in the Second Amendment, I just ask them if they’d be willing to repeal the Second Amendment if doing so meant that they could ban and confiscate our guns. If the answer is “yes”, and you keep arguing with them about the meaning of terms in the Second Amendment, you’re guilty of what Jesus called “casting pearls before swine”–it’s a waste of time.

    People who want to repeal the Second Amendment should just come out and say so. Their sophistry is just bullshit, and we hurt our own cause when we play their bullshit game by their bullshit rules.

    1. Oh I get. We’re talking about arming people for warfare. So how do the people who agree with you view of things Ken justify outright banning the weapons of war?

      1. I consider that it’s an infringement of our Constitutional rights.

      2. By the way, has anyone else noticed that the same people who say the Second Amendment is outdated because the government coming after our rights like the British did is an absurd concept are the same people who applaud using the government to force nuns to finance their employee’s fornication, want to use the government to inflict the the Green New Deal on our economy like a Stalinesque five year plan, and want the government to force us all onto a government run healthcare program?

        1. But, but, but the government is the people! Says it right there with “We the People!” Our government can’t be tyrannical because it’s us! Just like the debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves! Faulty premises win again!

        2. Its the same assholes.

          Average Americans are protected to possess any Arm they want. This was a super important right to protect against another tyrannical government that the Founders expected to happen at some point in the future.

          Anyone who thought the Founders who defeated the largest tyrannical government in the World largely because of average armed Americans should not have weapons is delirious.

      3. Have you noticed that the people who say it’s ridiculous to worry about the government coming after our rights are the same people who want the government to disqualify us all from management positions if we’ve ever said anything on social media that 1) opposes gay marriage (homophobic hate speech), 2) supports building a wall on our border (xenophobic hate speech), or 3) opposes affirmative action (racist hate speech), etc?

        Have you noticed that the people who think it’s ridiculous for us to worry about the government coming after our rights are the same people who want to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election–without any evidence and with testimony obtained in a secret hearing?

      4. If the progressives wanted to get the American people to support repealing the Second Amendment, the best thing they could do is stop being so openly hostile to our rights. Unfortunately for progressives, using the government to force individuals to sacrifice their individual rights for what progressives see as the common good is what being a progressive is all about. Progressive can’t stop being hostile to our individual rights because being hostile to our individual rights is an essential part of what it means to be a progressive.

    2. People who want to repeal the Second Amendment should just come out and say so. Their sophistry is just bullshit, and we hurt our own cause when we play their bullshit game by their bullshit rules.

      Seriously? You don’t know a damn thing about tactics if you think you should tell your enemy exactly what your plans are rather than lull him into a false sense of security by telling him lies. I agree we hurt our cause when we try to argue with people who are arguing in bad faith, though. My response to these liars who insist they only want “reasonable, common-sense gun laws” is to suggest that, since the reasonable, common-sense gun law known as the Brady Bill wasn’t reasonable and common-sense enough, let’s start the process of crafting reasonable, common-sense gun laws by repealing the Brady Bill, shall we? If you’ll agree we start with a blank slate on the issue, I’ll agree to discuss compromising on the issue. I’m pretty sure that’s not their idea of compromise, their idea is always “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable” and you’re being unreasonably obdurate if you refuse to negotiate on the size of the one more bite of the apple they’re demanding.

      1. “Seriously? You don’t know a damn thing about tactics if you think you should tell your enemy exactly what your plans are . . .

        The point is to call them out on their bullshit.

        Do you or do you not want to repeal the Second Amendment?

        If the answer is that, yes, they want to repeal the Second Amendment, then you can tell them to go try.

        If the answer is no, they’re painting themselves into a corner. What is it about the Second Amendment that they like so much that they don’t want to repeal it?

        Gun grabbers have no answer to that question.

        When we expose them as trying to twist the words of the amendment when all they really want to do is pull the legal protection out from under our rights, we win.

        No, I don’t expect them to be honest. The point is to expose them.

  12. Just because the Congress fails in its Constitutional duty relating to the organization, training, etc, of the militia doesn’t mean i can let my end of the deal down by not having arms on hand in case they’re needed to put down insurrections, defend against foreign invasions, and such.

  13. Just for the record, I should have included this part:

    “By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

    —-The Federalist Papers : No. 29

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    The terms “well regulated militia” and “well trained militia” are being used interchangeably, and the argument is that the reason the right to bear arms should be respected is so that civilians can train themselves with their own weapons.

    Well-regulated means well-trained.

    1. Yup. The reason Americans have been so good at war in 240+ years is because the average American is good with weapons.

  14. I’m only for recognizing Constitutional amendments that can be deciphered without trying to figure out what noun the dangling participle is referring to. Was Jefferson applying a bit of the oil of the opium when he wrote this or could he just not wait to slip it to one of his slaves?

    1. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Can you understand that part, or do you need to review your grammar first?

      P.S. The more you brag about your inability to understand things, the more apt people are to think you’re stupid and the less likely they are to find your arguments persuasive.

      1. Yeah, does the participle before that imply that right is constrained to that of a militia or not? Maybe. Hmmm…

        You think i’m The only one that has ever commented on the grammatical mess of the 2nd Amendment?

        1. The people who drafted it understood it perfectly well as did every court that interpreted it for the first couple centuries of American judicial precedent.

          You think i’m The only one that has ever commented on the grammatical mess of the 2nd Amendment?

          Please. You’ve never had an original thought in your life. We know that the people who give you Cliff’s notes talking points have been molesting plain language for half a century in service of their agenda, and we also know that they got it shoved up their ass and snapped off in 2010. MoveOn.org, shreeky. Then go fuck some more kids, you degenerate piece of subhuman shit.

        2. “You think i’m The only one that has ever commented on the grammatical mess of the 2nd Amendment?”

          No we definitely do not think you’re the only stupid person in the world.

    2. If you had more than a 1st grade reading level there would be no mental strain on how clauses work.

      1. I don’t understand why he keeps bragging about his ignorance–as if it’s something we should respect and aspire to be ourselves.

        It’s not just this thread. Watch for it in other threads. Over and over again it’s basically, “I’m such an idiot, and I know you guys are wrong because I don’t know anything about this”.

        “Ignorance is Strength”

        —-Big Brother

        This is that mentality.

        I used to go after right wing people during Bush’s war on terror for bragging about how scared they were of terrorism–so scared that they were willing to sell our constitutional rights short. Being afraid isn’t something to be proud of, and being so scared that you’re wiling to sell the Constitution short is fucking unmanly and unpatriotic! In the logic of the time, however, grown men would brag about being scared with a sense of patriotism. I’m so glad we’re over that, at least I hope we are!

        In the post-Obama era, we’re seeing similar shit from the left, only this time, they keep bragging about how ignorant and stupid they are–as if that were something to be proud of? Why, I’m so dumb, I can’t understand what words mean–so when people start talking about what words mean, there’s nothing I can do! That’s how I know you’re all wrong. Why can’t you guys be more of a fucking idiot like me? That’s basically what they’re saying, and in their minds, somehow, that all makes sense when they write it.

        It’s like being proud of picking your nose and eating it and thinking that everyone else wants to be like you–because you pick your nose and eat it.

        1. If they allowed pictures to be posted we could help the poor fool.

    3. Feel free to ignore the 2A if you like; it establishes no new rights.

      The question you need to answer is: where does the US constitution delegate the power to restrict gun ownership to government?

      1. The question you need to answer is: where does the US constitution delegate the power to restrict gun ownership to government?

        THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS SELF-LIMITING, BOZO.

        THE QUESTIONSYOU NEED TO ANSWER
        1) WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION GRANT UNEDUCATED BOZOS MORE POWER THAN THE SUPREME COURT?

        2) HOW MANY OTHERS ARE TOO STOOPID TO DENY (A) THE EXISTENCE AND (B) PROPRIETY OF …. JUDICIAL REVIEW?

        GRANTED, YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THAT SAME CONSTITUTION … EVEN TO CONTINUE THROWING YOURSELF ON YOUR BACK … KICKING YOUR HEELS INTO THE FLOOR AND THROW RAGING HISSY FITS,

        AS A LIBERTARIAN, I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH, YOUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CONTINUE MAKING A PUBLIC ASS OF YOURSELF.

        NOW, YOUR TURN. PLEASE CONFIRM MY RIGHT TO HAVE MADE THIS AND HUNDREDS OF SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT YOUR RANTS.

        1. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re not a libertarian, you’re a fascist.

          Crawl back into your sewer, Hihn.

          1. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re not a libertarian, you’re a fascist.COWARDLY DIVERSION
            TOTALLY FAILURE to defend his craziness.

            ONLY FASCISTS DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL LAW …. IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE … SOMEWHERE
            🙂

            His is the “mentality” that bellows, “BERNIE SANDERS IS A COMMUNIST” … and “DENMARK IS A STALINIST GULAG.” … “OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA” … “TRUMP WON THE ELECTORAL VOTE IN A LANDSLIDE”

  15. Natural rights to own whatever you like and defend your person and property now trumped entirely by lawbertarian arguments about constitutional interpretation? For the record, I interpret the 2A to mean citizens have the right to arms themselves in order to form a militia, because what use is an unarmed militia? Cart before horse arguments about what a “well-regulated militia” is manage to miss the point entirely. In a broader, more philosophical sense, I support the natural rights of free citizens to own whatever firearms and weaponry they choose, regardless of the legal interpretation du jour, or political zeitgeists and alarmist, dishonest lobbying.

    1. Which is why repealing the 2nd doesn’t actually answer the question of whether or not you have a right to keep and bear arms – the Bill of Rights is simply a non-exhaustive list of “unalienable rights” human beings are “endowed by their Creator” with, none of these are rights created by government and therefore they are not repealable by government.

      1. Nonsense. We repealed the 18th Amendment.

        1. The Bill of Rights is only the first 10 amendments dipshit.

          1. The Lefties just keep sending in socks for target practice.

    2. WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT SOME AUTHOOITARIAN FASCIST THINKS … WHO PROCLAIMS HIMSELF SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION, LIES ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS (WHICH ARE SUBORDINATE TO NATURAL LAW) , AND SHITS ON ELEMENTARY LOGIC … BECAUSE WHINING

      If you don’t like it … EMIGRATE … instead of MOOCHING the freedom created and maintained by people you claim had no right to do so.

      Anyone else believe Natural Law gives them the right to own a nuclear missile? (Other than alt-right goobers)

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another bitchfit.

        I’m shaking my firearms at you, Mikey!

    3. For the record, I interpret the 2A to mean citizens have the right to arms themselves in order to form a militia, because what use is an unarmed militiaFor the record, nobody gives a flying handshake how YOU interpret the Constitution. That’s what SCOTUS does.

      THAT militia has been illegal for decades … and was illegal at our founding. STATES formed and controlled militias, DUH.

      Since you are not an Emperor. If you want to empower street gangs, you must get a Constitutional Amendment both proposed and ratified

      I support the natural rights of free citizens to own whatever firearms and weaponry they choose, regardless of the legal interpretation du jour, or political zeitgeists and alarmist, dishonest lobbying.

      WOW .,.. THAT requires a Constitutional Convention … not sure how one authoritarian mentality can INVENT NATURAL LAW , BY WHIM, OUT OF THIN AIR.

      I’m also looking at you, hateconstitution1789
      .

      1. Clarify

        or the record, I interpret the 2A to mean citizens have the right to arms themselves in order to form a militia, because what use is an unarmed militia

        For the record, nobody gives a flying handshake how YOU interpret the Constitution. That’s what SCOTUS does.

  16. I once saw someone explain the prefatory clause v.s. the operative clause in this way: you change a few of the scary words to analogous un-scary words, and see what people think it means then.
    “A well-informed electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read newspapers shall not be infringed.” Then you can ask, “does this sentence prohibit children from reading the paper, since they are too young to be part of the electorate?” How about non-citizens? Can they read papers? How about people too busy or lazy to register to vote? Does it say anything about them not having the right to keep and read newspapers?” No. It never says that. Reading things that aren’t there is a huge problem today. And what about other non-enumerated uses? Does it forbid lining the birdcage with the thing? It does not.

    1. I like this analogy. It is amusing and accurate. Thumbs up!

    2. A job being a necessary for prosperity, the right of the people to own cars shall not be infringed.

      Do only people with jobs get to have a car?

      1. LOGIC????
        hahahaha

    3. I once saw someone explain the prefatory clause v.s. the operative clause in this way: you change a few of the scary words to analogous un-scary words, and see what people think it means then.

      That may or may not be true …but has NO FUCKING THING to do with those two clauses.

      Perhaps another lame excuse, by somebody who found out they had been totally brainwashed on TWO Supreme Court rulings since 1939?

  17. But for many people, especially today among the activist Left, “regulation” is essential, a feature not an uncertain bug. Natural rights are subservient to social goals, and regulation does not need to be justified. Consider:

    A well regulated Media, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to the freedom of speech, or of the Press, shall not be infringed.

    How many Americans would approved of this update?

    1. Your example points up the changed definition of the word “regulated”. If construed as it was in the 1700’s it means “trained” and implies that people better know their way around news gathering so they can participate properly in those freedoms. If “regulated” is construed in the modern sense, as “crushed or constrained by government”, the phrase is clearly contradictory and nonsensical.

    2. Natural rights are subservient to social goals

      Yeah that is just a fundamentally collectivist way to view things, and completely wrong.

    3. Yeah what Chemlady (?) said.

    4. How many Americans would approved of this update?Only crazed retards who think the militia ran around giving speeches.

      But … that DOES equate (roughly) to the REASON Scalia gave for defending the 1939 limits on 2A … while also literally ridiculing your “interpretation” of those limits

  18. Doherty EXPANDS his recent BULLSHIT on Heller, sinking even lower to disgracing today’s libertarianism. I will CITE Scalia’s
    ACTUAL Heller to expose the crap and include common knowledge.

    Heller merely says the government can’t enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

    SHAME ON YOU.
    He reaffirmed US v Miller (1939) that “in common use” meant AT RATIFICATION.. This is perhaps THE most psycho distortion of guntards
    .

    THAT’S WHY THE NRA WAS POWERLESS AGAINST THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN … FOR TEN LONG YEARS ,.. UNTIL IT EXPIRED … IT COULD ONLY BE REPEALED OR EXPIRE … WHICH ALREADY DEMOLISHES DOHERTY. BUT I HAVE MORE … MUCH MORE

    The idea that the Second Amendment applies only to people actively serving in a government-organized militia is based partly on a misreading of the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller. In Miller

    DIVERSION. See just above.
    The militia clause RESTRICTS the weapons protected to the “modern version” of weapons brought from home for militia duty … muskets .,.. so … YES, Virginia, 2A DOES protect only the equivalent of hunting rifles, NOT semi-automatics.

    The proof is lengthy, because gun nuts have SO MANY fucking lies. LINKS TO RULINGS AND PAGE NUMBERS INCLUDED.
    NO ESCAPE for the wicked

    I’ll will now teach folks HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling .
    This is the segment Doherty lied about, so shamelessly

    Heller Ruling Page One
    United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes. It limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:.. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

    Weapons used by the militia. Full stop

    cont’d

    1. PART TWO

      US v Miller the precedent (for dummies)

      … from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

      1) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

      2) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … THE TIME PERIOD DOES NOT CHANGE IN MID-SENTENCE . (DUH) …. So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.

      Cont’d

      1. PART THREE

        Heller, page 58
        We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816.
        (((THAT was Doherty’s lie re Miller))

        We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

        ….as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty…..

        Plus, NO rights can be TOTALLY absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

        Cont’d

        1. PART FOUR

          Heller, Page 55

          “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

          That’s the issue, which he dismisses.

          But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

          Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Miller and page 1 of Heller

          ***** HERE WE GO!! ….

          It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

          PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE TODAY … AND …

          Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

          The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks.

          ***BUT

          But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller) CLEAR ENOUGH??

          It’s SCARY how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell’s Newspeak
          “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”
          Even the slightest variance is a thoughtcrime to the obedient puppets

          -Just another PRO-LIBERTY libertarian (NOT an anti-gummint goober) …
          defending individual liberty … from oppressors both left and right …  for several decades … until death do us part
          .

          Any questions?

          Let the screeching begin! 🙂

          1. Wow! I never agreed with Reason’s decision to ban Michael Hihn, but I sure am glad TheLibertyTruthTeller is here to present the pro-freedom case for comprehensive gun safety legislation.

            1. Alright, I chuckled. Nicely done.

            2. Thanks for reminding me what a FUCKING FRAUD Reason.com. Specifically Gillespie and Mangu-Ward. It began with a specific and crazy event a few years back.

              This was how it was described on Popehat, a top civil liberties website… It was a legal action brought against Reason for allowing … INSANITY BY REASON’S BELOVED ALT-RIGHT … against a ruling that ENRAGED the Authoritarian thugs against the judge.

              I use boldface to show how Reason.com was TOTALLY HUMILIATED to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of web surfers.

              It would be HYSTERICAL if not so fucking insane.

              http://bit.ly/2ULGXer

              ” DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery.

              TO THE ENTIRE CIVIL LIBERTARIAN UNIVERSE. Now the comments cited by Popehat. Take an anti-vomit medicine

              Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

              It’s judges like these that WILL be taken out back and shot. .

              Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.

              Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

              I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible (judge).

              Fuck that. I don’t want to pay for that cunt’s food, housing, and medical. Send her through the wood chipper.

              CATO linked to Popehat! OMFG.

              Now my point. Katherine and Nick defend all this by LYING about an absolute defense of free speech … which YOU just said you know is a FUCKIJG LIE!

              IT’S EVEN WORSE …, and I have hundreds of screenshots for proof.

              The ONLY people who get banned … five that I know of … are LIBERTARIANS … defending LIBERTARIAN values … on a LIBERTARIAN website.

              You have seen the VILE and VICIOUS attacks by alt-right thugs.
              MY POINT IS … the “free speech” defense is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

              I know there are at least five bans … because ALL OF THEM ARE HIHN. Including me. That’s why the ASSHOLES keep raging about socks.

              They can’t ban me now ..,. because of what I’ll now repeat.
              I repeatedly post, like this , that I have HUNDREDS of screenshots, PROVING Reason’s assault on LIBERTARIAN VALUES … which will be submitted, if I’m banned and purged again … to Charles Koch, Robert Poole (Reason’s co-founder) and the ENTIRE board of the Reason Foundation. AND THE LEGIT CONSERVATIVE MEDIA, WSJ. National Review, and others.

              It’s all prepared. ready to go, waiting for another ASSAULT.
              AND, my attorney says the more evidence I collect. the bigger my lawsuit.

              If THIS gets deleted ….. ACTION.

              Look at Reason’s Comment term, atop this section. But take MORE anti-vomit medication.

              We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

              Translation: We have no monitoring … and NO guidelines … but we will delete and purge you for whatever suits our fancy … and REFUSE to say why.

              Can we say FASCISM? The comments DO represent Reason … by what they favor and what they purge.

              The absolute craziest ..;. and I have PROOF … ONCE when they deleted every offensive comment on the board .. INCLUDING six aggressors. Here’s how fucking stupid they are … only ONE was banned and all HIS messages, forever purged .. GUESS WHICH ONE (smirk) AND ALL THE OTHERS STILL POST AND BULLY.

              THAT proof had my attorney bouncing in his chair!!

              Reason is the ONLY “major” political web site that REFUSES to monitor comments, several have shut down their comments entirely.

              Just like the marketplace, Reason attracts the assholes banned everywhere else. THIS is their ONLY safe haven.

              Why the authoritarian slant? RON PAUL. The cocksucker who BRAGS of sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA. The “fucking fags” (sarc) would be the first group denied the defense of Constitutional rights since … niggers (sarc).

              THEN Ron Paul said it was ROGUE JUDGES who overturned DOMA … the fucker DENIES checks and balances between THREE co-equal branches, claims states have rights never delegated … and LIES about the 10th Amendment (SEVERELY limited by the 9th)

              If you know his past history of RACISM … HE is the new JIM CROW … the spiritual founder of the Alt-Right … and the neo-nazi and white nationalist violence in Charlottesville.

              THAT is what DESTROYED the libertarian movement … now anti-government and no longer pro-PEOPLE.

              Oh, their Resson’s abuse claim is also FRAUDULENT. Pick a comment, click the abuse flag. Refresh. You’ll see the message replaced by a flag saying your complaint will be reviewed …. FRAUD.

              Come back with a different browser. Or clear the cookies if you have one browser. Go back to that message. IT’S VISIBLE … it’s “under review” ONLY to the victim!!! NOBODY ELSE!! Yes, I have screenshots!!

              This place has become ONE SICK FUCKSICLE .. and I’ve been a Reason reader since its second year. (as a magazine)

              You triggered me. By how you phrased that. 🙂

              P.S. A Cato survey, conducted by a top independent pollster (Zogby) found that 59% of Americans would SELF-identify with libertarian values .. fiscally conservative and socially liberal
              It was a “brand management” survey. Our “Product” was HIGHLY popular (now over 60% on marriage equality alone). But our brand? The libertarian label was rejected by 91% of those libertarians. What does that say, when one is DESPISED by the vast majority of this who profess the values you CLAIM to value?

              Sorry, shoulda warned you to take another anti-vomit pill.
              (smirk)

              1. What a strange person you are.

                1. What a strange person you are.

                  What a WHINY PUSSY you are.
                  When PROOF exposes you — to you — as a dumbass

                  Challenge something … anything … so I can jam THAT up your ass.

                  Or just WHINE some more.

                  1. “”What a WHINY PUSSY you are.””

                    WHINY PUSSY is your writing style. Why give anyone else the credit.

                2. That’s an insult to strange people. He’s a lunatic.

              2. Hey Dumbfuck Hihnsano, tell your attorney he should jump in a woodchipper.

              1. CORRECTING THE STALKING CYBER-BULLY, SEVO

                Fuck off, Hihn Scalia

                (SNEER)
                PROUD to make a public ass of himself.

                1. You’re crazy as a loon.

                  1. What is the IQ of a gerbil?
                    I post a 5-part post, quoting Antonin Scalia’s Heller ruling, all the key parts..

                    You’re crazy as a loon.

                    THIS gerbil says the late Justice Scalia was “crazy as a loon!”
                    🙂

                    1. I take it back. Loons have the sense to come up for air.

                      Let’s go with batshit crazy.

                    2. I take it back. Loons have the sense to come up for air.

                      SCALIA IS DEAD (smirk)

                      Let’s go with batshit crazy.

                      SELF-DEFENSE FUCKSTICK!

                      Now the aggressor wants to control how he will “allow” his victim to defend himself!.

                    3. This has to be Tulpa doing a crazy Hihn thing.

                    4. Hihn, Ken emasculated your arguments with quotes from the Federalist Papers (see above). Scalia was simply wrong on many points; he wasn’t some god.

                    5. “”Scalia was simply wrong on many points; he wasn’t some god.”‘

                      Scalia never said it was limited to types of firearms available in the 1700s. Heller’s firearm was not available back then and Scalia sided with Heller.

                    6. How mnay fuckuos can TrickyVic make in so short a post.

                      Scalia never said it was limited to types of firearms available in the 1700s.

                      He said the modern equivalent, but was citing the 1939 precedent.

                      Heller’s firearm was not available back then and Scalia sided with Heller/bmockuite>WTF? Scalia WROTE Heller, and sided with US v MILLER.

                    7. BigT
                      Hihn, Ken emasculated your arguments with quotes from the Federalist Papers (see above).

                      BULLSHIT
                      1) Cherry-picked quotes by one of the biggest psychos on the board
                      2) THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ARE NOR THE CONSTITUTION

                      NOW YOU GO TOTALLY OFF THE RAILS.

                      Scalia was simply wrong on many points;

                      CRAZY GUNTARD SAYS SCALIA WAS WRONG ON THE 1939 MILLER RULING.
                      OR IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW THAT SCALIA METELY AFFIRMED THE 1939 PRECEDENT

                      he wasn’t some god.

                      FUCK OFF, all I said was .. and PROVED … that you people ..,and Reason LIED about Heller … so this is just a LAME diversion from your humiliation

                      YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT THE RULING WAS MADE IN 1939!!
                      Scalia NEEDED to address any and all prior precedents, when he established the new precedent of an individual right. So you ALSO know NOTHING of how and why SCOTUS even functions.

                      It’s increasingly obvious that conservatards are are hopelessly brainwashed on 2A … as progtards are on Medicare for All.
                      (I’d already knew and proved that about 2A. But guys like you, on so much of this page. including Reason’s blatant lies and misinformation, that now make me aware of the many parallels. Left – Right does indeed equal Zero.
                      .

            1. Go to hell you fascist.

              1. Lose AGAIN???

        2. Go to hell you evil fascist, Hihn.

          1. 3700 words … directly linked and quoted to Scalia’s Heller decision, and the 1939 precedent … and what does the crazed guntard say … THAT ANTONIN SCALIA WAS A FASCIST!!

            Or NOYB2 is a psycho?

            1. Hihn is the psycho.

              (Chortle)

            2. No, I’m sayin you are a fascist, Hihn. Spread your poison elsewhere.

              1. HOW CRAZY ARE THEY?

                3700 words … directly linked and quoted to Scalia’s Heller decision, and the 1939 precedent … and what does the crazed guntard say … THAT ANTONIN SCALIA WAS A FASCIST!!

                No, I’m sayin you are a fascist, Hihn.

                FOR QUOTING SCALIA!BWAAA HAAA .

                FASCISM CONSISTS OF QUOTING SCALIA’S WORDS. WOULD IT BE FASCISM FOR ME TO HAVE QUOTED JESUS CHRIST? TO QUOTED …. YOU?

                OR IS FASCISM THE AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY THAT SHOUTS DOWN DOCUMENTED PROOF …, NEVER PROVING A FUCKING THING AND …. A TOTAL FUCKING FAILURE TO DISPROVE A SINGLE WORD …. OF SCALIA’S

                SHORT VERSION. FASCISM IS
                1) Nearly 4000 words, PROVING Supreme Court rulings, with both links and page numbers so anyone confirm the facts.

                OR

                2) Screeching like a psychopath, repeated personal assaults, FAILURE to disprove a single point, whining like a pussy, and … SHOOTING THE MESSENGER FOR HIS MESSAGE.

                ***Of the two, which is the modern equivalent of Hitler’s Brownshirts.

                I’m still gaming him,.and all of them. He’ll rage and screech, impressing his gang of thugs … while WITLESSLY showing the vast majority of readers how big a threat the far-right wackos are.

                The majority of readers are libertarians or leaning, since EDUCATED people know 80-90% of forum READERS never comment. And this IS a libertarian web site. 🙂

                KEEP MAKING MY CASE, BLOWHARDS BROWNSHIRTS!!!

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad because no one is buying his gun ban lunacy.

        1. (adoring eyes) BRILLIANTLY ARGUED!

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:..

      See, gun nuts, who is Antonin Scalia to define our right to fire off anti-aircraft missiles near the airport. The 2nd Amendment is lame.

      1. (adoring eyes) BRILLIANTLY ARGUED!

  19. Anti-gun propagandists would have us believe that the right to arms in 2A only applies while serving in an organized military unit under government direction. The idea is preposterous because in that case the Second Amendment would serve no purpose at all. Why would any government field unarmed military units? The militia clause conveys the Founders’ belief that an armed citizenry was essential to an effective defense of liberty, and the right has nothing to do with hunting or sports.

    1. Sorry Allan, but even Justice Scalia says your full of shit on 2A.
      He was THE “originalist” Justice, and wrote THE most relevant ruling.
      Who are you?

        1. Fucking crazy.

          When I JAMMED it up Walstad’s pathetic ass … your own ass was a simple bank shot … off the corner pocket.

          1. That doesn’t make any sense. Go ask the nurse for a PRN.

            1. I’ll TRY to dumb it down.
              When I jammed the same point up Walstad’s ass … and you made the same fuckup .. it had ALREADY been jammed up yours.
              So, why repeat?

              Actually, now that I look, yours was FAR crazier!
              YOU said I was “crazy” for saying that Scalia, who WROTE the ruling, was THE “originalist” Justice,.

              Which part is “crazy” in your psychotic universe?
              Scalia wrote the Heller ruling?
              Scalia was THE “originalist” Justice of his era?
              Both?

              ————–

              This is the month of November.

              I say that, so you can make an even BIGGER public ass of yourself, by screeching that it’s … oh … any other month!!

              Here’s another one, I part my hair on the left side.
              Another, my middle name is John.
              And, my birth date is Christmas Eve.

              GO FOR IT!!!

              1. “ YOU said I was “crazy” for saying that Scalia, who WROTE the ruling, was THE “originalist” Justice,.”

                No I said you’re crazy cuz you’ve filled this entire thread with crazy shit.

                Also because you’re batshit crazy.

                1. “ YOU said I was “crazy” for saying that Scalia, who WROTE the ruling, was THE “originalist” Justice,.”

                  No I said you’re crazy cuz you’ve filled this entire thread with crazy shit.

      1. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia….” That’s Scalia. You are full of shit.

        1. ANOTHER CRAZED FUCKUP BY ALLLAN WALSTAD!
          (Should NOT have said I was “full of shit” WHILE YOU WERE FUCKING UP BIGLY!

          “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia….” That’s Scalia. You are full of shit

          THAT is what EARNED you this RIDICULE!

          That’s NOT what I challenged, doofus …

          THIS is bullshit

          The militia clause conveys the Founders’ belief that an armed citizenry was essential to an effective defense of liberty, and the right has nothing to do with hunting or sports.

          SCALIA says your full of shit … twice.
          See the FULL context here:
          https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

          The direct bullshit is your stated purpose of 2A … PER SCALIA

          The indirect bullshit is “hunting.” Indirect. because Scalia ruled, and reaffirmed US v Miller (1939) that 2A protects ONLY the modern version of weapons brought from home for militia duty, at our founding … modern version of MUSKETS being … hunting rifles!! (NO SEMI-AUTOMATICS AT ALL).

          Despite Doherty’s bullshit here … that’s WHY the NRA was TOTALLY powerless against Assault Weapons Ban … for ten long years … until it expired. it could ONLY be repealed or expire …. a ban that was fully constitutional … since 1939!

          Sadly, the second amendment is manipulated by massive lies and brainwashing on the right … as badly as Medicare for All on the left.

          Because, as libertarians have been saying for over 50 years:
          Left – Right = Zero
          And a growing majority of Americans agrees.

          Anything else?

          1. You lost.

            1. You lost.

              Do we believe 3700 words, in two SCOTUS rulings — mostly Scalia’s Heller, plus the 1939 precedent …. all with links and page numbers to for the rulings?

              OR A SNIVELING …. BUTTPLUG?

              Obviously, the brainwashing and manipulation. for Second Amendment on the right … is as totally devastating as Medicare for All on the left.

              THAT’S WHY GOD INVENTED LIBERTARIANS!

              1. First thing in the morning you should ask for an appointment with your psychiatrist to get your dose increased.

                1. Seriously. This is not a joke or an insult.

                  1. Seriously. This is not a joke or an insult.

                    I know. You’re a PROVEN psycho, stalking me all down the page.

                    You just inserted yourself into a thread, for the sole purpose of launching an unprovoked verbal assault,

                    Reminds me of your ilk at Charlottesville.

                    1. Lol.

                      (Chortle)

          2. I read the earlier comment to which you refer. Nothing quoted from Scalia says that 2A now only protects hunting rifles. That’s your gloss. Nothing there quoted denies the point I made, which is undeniable, that no one would bother to put in a Bill of Rights that soldiers serving in organized military units under the control of the government have the right to cary a weapon. What government is going to send unarmed soldiers into battle? But feel free to continue your bluster. I have to go to work in the morning.

            1. WALLSTAD … SELF-HUMILIATED FOR STUPIDITY … NOW GOES FULL PSYCHO LIAR.

              I read the earlier comment to which you refer. Nothing quoted from Scalia says that 2A now only protects hunting rifles.

              THIS is what it said, YOU PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT

              The militia clause RESTRICTS the weapons protected to the “modern version” of weapons brought from home for militia duty … muskets .,.. so … YES, Virginia, 2A DOES protect only the equivalent of hunting rifles, NOT semi-automatics.

              (VOMIT)
              Just like Trump.
              1) Make a TOTAL dumbass statement
              2) When called out as a liar, GO INSANE
              3) Ever-escalating lies … crazier and crazier … infantile personal assaults

              ***Why not SHUT THE FUCK UP, instead of non-stop, ever-escalating. SELF HUMILIATION?

              Umm, does your health insurance cover the ego transplant you sorely need?

              I FEEL LIKE I’M KICKING A CRIPPLE! PLEASE STOP STALKING ME

              1. “I’M KICKING A CRIPPLE! PLEASE STOP STALKING ME“

                That’s messed up you would abuse cripples. But then again crazy is as crazy does. Now go ask the nurse for a PRN and get some sleep.

                1. IS THERE NO LIMIT TO R MAC’s PSYCHOPSATHY??

                  I FEEL LIKE I’M KICKING A CRIPPLE! PLEASE STOP STALKING ME

                  “I’M KICKING A CRIPPLE! PLEASE STOP STALKING ME“

                  That’s messed up you would abuse cripples. But then again crazy is as crazy does. Now go ask the nurse for a PRN and get some sleep.

              2. “”THIS is what it said, YOU PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT””

                How about linking something from Scalia, instead linking your own posts.

                Heller’s handgun was something not in use back in the 1770s.

                To claim Scalia is limiting to weapons that were available back then doesn’t even make since in Heller because of the weapon that was in question with Heller.

                1. Heller’s handgun was something not in use back in the 1770s.

                  READ THE RULING. YOU HAVE THE LINK. SCALIA ACTUALLY RIDULES YOU …. HERE IT IS AGAIN — JUST TO RUB IT IN

                  Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
                  Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

                  Got it?

                  To claim Scalia is limiting to weapons that were available back then doesn’t even make sense in Heller

                  It does IF YOU’D READ IT.

              3. Anti-gun propagandists floating preposterous “interpretations” of court rulings and historical documents is nothing new, PseudoLibertarian. Unlike you, most of them do try to maintain an air of civility as they seek to undermine our rights. You sound like a 13-year-old, and I do wonder if your parents know how you are insulting the adults online. But if I’m mistaken and you are older, I suggest you check your blood pressure frequently and take your meds (blood pressure or otherwise). Bye bye, now.

                1. THIS IS WHAT I REPLIED TO, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT
                  https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995912

                  That’s your gloss … But feel free to continue your bluster. I have to go to work in the morning.

                  NOW the FUCKING bully … wants to DICTATE how he’ll “allow” his victim to respond.

                  AND YOU’RE A PROVEN LIAR ON WHAT YOU CLAIMED SO SNARKILY.

            2. NOW THE ASSHOLE COMMENTS ONE 1/5 OF THE COMMENT .. for ANOTHER PSYCHO DENIAL!!

              Nothing there quoted denies the point I made, which is undeniable, that no one would bother to put in a Bill of Rights that soldiers serving in organized military units under the control of the government have the right to carry a weapon.

              (sneer)
              1) THAT’S NOT WHA
              2) WHY DO YOU ASSUME ONE COMMENT

              US v Miller (1939)

              The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

              1. Their gonna end up giving you an injection, and take away all your internet time.

            3. Nothing there quoted denies the point I made, which is undeniable, that no one would bother to put in a Bill of Rights that soldiers serving in organized military units under the control of the government have the right to carry a weapon.

              (sneer)
              1) THAT’S NOT WHAT YOU SAID … IJN A PARAGRAPH THAT WAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED
              2) “There” is ONE part of a a five part post. DUH
              3) That is NOT relevant, since you have NOTHING left.
              4) And THAT was addressed in Miller! (smirk)
              Ready?

              US v Miller (1939)

              The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

              One ACTUAL concern was that a standing army could be activated by banning and control of citizen guns ,… hence the militia clause ALSO specifies the security of free state — to connect the state militias to the national security …. NOT so some crazed right-wing assholes could mount a revolution, as too many guntrads seem to have been brainwashed.

              1. Quickly, without looking it up, what day and year is it?

                1. Quickly, without looking it up, what day and year is it?

                  The day and year you were PROVEN a pyscho, LINKED to the proof
                  8 times. So far.

                  1. The only thing linking to your own stupidity proves is that your a dumbfuck, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

                    Tell your attorney I said hello!

  20. Let’s repeal the 2nd Amendment and let local communities decide how and where they want to be regulated. Case in point: Jim Bob Bojangles Buttfucker from Tuscaloosa, Alabama has a portable flamethrower he brought back from ‘Nam. He wants to use it for home protection and home heating. Who are we to decide he can’t use it in this way because some liberal ninny on the 2nd circuit decides this is beyond the purview of the 2nd Amendment. You think that kind of bullshit logic would fly in Alabama. Fuck off, flame-thrower-as-home-heating-device-hater slaver

    1. “Case in point: Jim Bob Bojangles Buttfucker from Tuscaloosa, Alabama has a portable flamethrower he brought back from ‘Nam.”

      Case in point:
      Fucking lefty ignoramuses never have anything reasonable people consider “facts” or “arguments”; they make up screwy hypotheticals.
      Fuck off and die, commie kid. But pay your mortgage first.

      1. EAT SHIT YOU WHINY PUSSY
        .
        NOW YOU GET TO LIE ABOUT SCALIA’S HELLER RULING.
        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608
        INCREASINGLY, YOU ARE ALL ALONE, TWISTING IN THE WIND.

          1. Off your meds I see.

            Follow the link, you fucking coward

            I also jammed it up your ass here
            https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995851

            Will you now try for Strike Three? Or go to the dugout and shower down.

              1. Anyone can click that link .. and CONFIRM you as a psycho liar in less than a minute

                1. Go ask the nurse for a prn.

        1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
          November.3.2019 at 1:34 pm
          “EAT SHIT YOU WHINY PUSSY”

          I wouldn’t touch any part of you, baked, fried or grilled.
          Fuck off and die, Hihn; the world will thank you.

          1. Not MY shit, you crazed misfuck.
            “Eat shit” means YOUR OWN.

            This is YET ANOTHER of your COWARDLY DIVERSIONS
            REPEAT:

            NOW YOU GET TO LIE ABOUT SCALIA’S HELLER RULING.
            https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608
            INCREASINGLY, YOU ARE ALL ALONE, TWISTING IN THE WIND

            Whiny pussy EVERY time he folds like a cheap suit.

            (sneer)

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having a bitchfit because no one is buying his gun ban arguments

              (sneer)

      2. Case in point: Jim Bob Bojangles Buttfucker from Tuscaloosa, Alabama has a portable flamethrower he brought back from ‘Nam.”

        Funny.

        Actually it is pretty easy to make your own and not illegal.

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a17562208/build-your-own-boring-company-flamethrower/

        1. Non-responsive

    2. I’m writing an op-ed on that now,

      Repealing 2A is a slam dunk … if replaced with a constitutional right of self-defense.

      AND EXPOSE THE NRA BULLSHIT

      Second Amendment – propaganda and misinformation

      Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

      Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
      5.3 United States
      3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
      1.7 Canada
      0.9 UK

      cont’d

      1. MOAR FACTS!!

        FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
        Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
        Mass Shootings Per year
        UK = 0.2 per year
        US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
        FUCK “sanctity of life”
        FUCK the psychs who say gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMG
        (Australia had one mass shooting in 23 years).

        Inconvenient questions:

        1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

        2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

        3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

        4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

        NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

        ”shall not be infringed” They beat their chests and bellow … nonsense, evasions and bullshit. … PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites. The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. Why is this rocket science to these people? (SEE Scalia’s Heller ruling)

        Left – Right = Zero
        Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
        Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking and bellowing. Their time is expiring.

        .

        1. Now compare the gun homicide rates among the US states. Why do some of the lowest rates occur in states with the loosest laws and highest ownership rates, while the most homicides occur in states (and cities) with the toughest gun laws and lowest ownership rates?

          1. DIVERSION.
            ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD

            Inconvenient questions:

            1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

            2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

            3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

            SHAME ON YOU FOR COWARDLY EVASION ON OUR TWO MILLION PERCENT HIGHER MASS SHOOTINGS!

            FUCK “sanctity of life”
            FUCK the psychos who say gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMFG
            (Australia had one mass shooting in 23 years).

            “Mess with the bull; get the horns.”

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves his gun bans!

              1. DIVERSION.
                ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD

                Inconvenient questions:

                1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

                2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

                3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                SHAME ON YOU FOR COWARDLY EVASION ON OUR TWO MILLION PERCENT HIGHER MASS SHOOTINGS!

                FUCK “sanctity of life”
                FUCK the psychos who say gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMFG
                (Australia had one mass shooting in 23 years).

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having a bitchfit because no one supports his gun ban fetish.

                  1. ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION.
                    ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD

                    Inconvenient questions:

                    1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

                    2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

                    3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                    SHAME ON YOU FOR COWARDLY EVASION ON OUR TWO MILLION PERCENT HIGHER MASS SHOOTINGS!

                    FUCK “sanctity of life”
                    FUCK the psychos who say gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMFG
                    (Australia had one mass shooting in 23 years).

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still having a bitchfit because no one is buying his gun ban fetish.

                    2. ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION.
                      ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, COWARD

                      Inconvenient questions:

                      1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

                      2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

                      3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                      SHAME ON YOU FOR COWARDLY EVASION ON OUR TWO MILLION PERCENT HIGHER MASS SHOOTINGS!

                      FUCK “sanctity of life”
                      FUCK the psychos who say gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMFG
                      (Australia had one mass shooting in 23 years).

        2. 1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

          The easiest targets. School shooters aren’t Delta operators.

          1. 1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

            The easiest targets. School shooters aren’t Delta operators

            But they’re a crazy as you?
            IGNORE WHO WILL SHOOT THEM?

            Those were trick question You folks FUCK THEM UP EVERY TIME?

            1. How many SROs have been taken out by school shooters?

              Up your lithium, Hihn

              1. HOW MANY TEACHERS ARE ARMED?
                And how do you FUCK UP so simple a question?.

                If teachers are thought to be armed…

                Why are ALL guntards so … tard?

                1. So if the teachers are armed, they’ll be targeted, but the SROs, who are ALREADY ARMED, won’t be?

                  How many SROs have been killed by school shooters?

                  Oh, and valuing the life of a teacher over their students? Real class, Hinnybinny.

                  1. How many SROs have been killed by school shooters?

                    TWO HAVE BEEN FIRED FOR FAILING TO RESPOND.

                    WHY DO YOU “THINK” THERE WOULD BE AN SRO IN EVERY CLASSROOM … WHEN, MOSTLY. THEY’RE NOT EVEN IN EVERY SCHOOL

                    LIKE ALL GUNTARDS, YOU JUST KEEP INVENTING MORE SHIT .. AS THEY KEEP EXPLODING IN YOUR PUSS,

                    Oh, and valuing the life of a teacher over their students? Real class, Hinnybinny.

                    IF SHE’;S SHOT HOW MANY STUDENTS HAVE THEY SAVED DUMBFUCK

                    *** AND UP YOUR ASS AGAIN JN STUDENT LIVES

                    FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
                    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
                    Mass Shootings Per year
                    UK = 0.2 per year
                    US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
                    But YOU “think” gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMG
                    (Australia had one in 23 years).

                    TWO MILLION PERCENT … DOCUMENTED …. VERSUS THE SNEERIIN OF A PROVEN MORAL RETARD

                    No surprise, to we libertarians, that gun goobers suffer SEVERE denial on gun tragedies, as badly as New Dealers deny the failures of single-payer (and social welfare in general.)

                    As libertarians have known for nearly a half-century: Right – Left = Zero.
                    True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their values by government force. Or by verbal aggression, shouting down all opposing views, triggered snowflake both onllne and on campus.

                    In all of human history, there have been only two functions of government. To impose ruling values by force. Or to defend individual liberty Which of those do YOU support?

                    1. Too bad Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t explode a shotgun blast in his own puss, the nation’s collective IQ would increase by 200%.

                    2. WHEN GUNTARDS FACE OFFICIAL DATA PROVING THEM WRONG … SHOOT THE MESSENGER

                      BEHOLD THE FASCIST RIGHT

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano supports Prohibition because it would reduce alcohol-related deaths.

              2. “How many SROs have been taken out by school shooters?” How many SROs have done anything to stop a school shooting. The answer to both questions is zero – because a SRO wears a uniform and anyone planning a school shooting can easily avoid him. Mass shooters are almost always cowards, who pick a place and time where no one will be shooting back, and either surrender or kill themselves as soon as armed opposition shows up.

                Also, police departments don’t put their best men on that detail, and the only SRO that happened to be present during a shooting spree was a coward who hid rather than going in. Calling him a “Barney Fife” would be an insult to the character. The shooter didn’t have to figure out how to ambush or avoid this SRO – the SRO avoided him!

                But suppose that the potential school shooter knows only that one or more teachers or other staff carry concealed, but doesn’t know who or how many.

            2. “ You folks FUCK THEM UP EVERY TIME?”

              No

              1. THE GUY ABOVE YOU FUCKED IT UP.
                And you’re too big a COWARD to even try!

                You stalking cyber-bullies kinda stupid.
                Most authoritarians are.

                1. Despite what the voices say, we’re not all against you. Go ask the nurse for a prn.

          1. Crazy ass.

            NOW A STALKING CYBER-BULLY … when he loses

            That blew up in your puss here
            https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995880

            1. HUMILIATED yourself here:
              https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995851

              And now again … with your infantile name-calling .. and NON-STOP COWARDICE ON EVERY ACTUAL ISSUE.

              DID YOU STICK YOUR TONGUE OUT?

              1. Get some sleep and get your meds adjusted in the am Hihn. It’s just sad now.

            2. “ That blew up in your puss”

              Ok, gotta be someone pretending to be Hihn.

        3. You’re not a libertarian, you’re an ignorant fascist. Go to hell.

          1. <b?

            You’re not a libertarian, you’re an ignorant fascist. Go to hell.

            DUMBASS CONSERVATARD PROVES HIMSELF AN AUTHORITARIAN BULLY

            AND A COWARD
            THESE QUESTIONS ALWAYS EXPOSE THE DUMBASS BELLOWING BLOWHARDS

            Inconvenient questions:

            1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

            2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

            3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

            They CANNOT answer without exposing their own stupidity

            And I am THAT smart! (smirk)

            1. Dumbass Hihn keeps confusing mass murder and homicide rates.

              1. FUCKING DIPSHIT .. I CITED both
                https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995668

                And NEITHER has ANYTHING to do with your dumbass reply.
                You’re a whiny pussy because you fucked up THIS just back one

                HOW DOES YOUR BULLSHIT ADDRESS OUR TWO MILLION PERCENT HIGHER RATE OF MASS SHOOTINGS????

                You’re not a libertarian, you’re an ignorant fascist

                (SMIRK)
                Pull your head out of your ass.
                The cote principle of libertarian is … NON-AGGRESSION
                So you, by launching multiple aggressions … have NO FUCKING CLUE what a libertarian is..

                And fascists were also aggressors.

                Punish me for PROVING you a COWARD …. so I’ll ask the same questions, PUSSY

                Inconvenient questions:

                1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH)

                2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did? DUH.

                3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                They CANNOT answer without exposing their own stupidity
                So they ALWAYS attack me for BURNING THEIR PATHETIC ASSES
                As PROVEN HERE!!!!

                Keep running away, PUSSY!
                MORE cowardly diversions.

                1. The only thing Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s proved here is that he’s Dumbfuck Hihnsano, as shown by the repeated links to his own useless arguments and spergouts.

                2. Hihn, you’re a senile fascist. You can’t prove anything to anyone because nobody is trying to reason with you. We’re simply telling you to crawl back into whatever sewer you crawled out of.

      2. Remove African Americans and Hispanics from homicide stats and the US is indistinguishable from Europe. Those also happen to be the groups with some of the lowest legal gun ownership rates.

        Homicides in the US are a problem with certain violent subcultures. Gun control is pointless.

        1. BRAINWASHED RETARD RECITES SOUNDBITES PROGRAMMED BY HIS PUPPETMASTERS

          WHICH HAVE NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH MASS SHOOTINGS!!!

          The folks who brainwash them, should also make sure they paste the proper soundbites for the issue at hand.

          (smirk)

          1. Brainwashed retards like you can’t even look up basic FBI statistics.

            1. Brainwashed retards like you can’t even look up basic FBI statistics.

              WHICH ONES?

              ARE YOU AGAIN EVADING OUR 2,000,000% HIGHER RATE OF MASS MURDERS, PUSSY?

              INFORMED people … certainly not you … know that FBI statistics are useless for comparing different parts of the country .. because there are no common reporting standards.

              Like all guntards you keep fucking up … then adding more bullshit .. also fucked up … then more … a never-ending cycle of bellowing on stuff you kmnpowe NOTHING about.

              Puppets dancing on string … controlled by the political elites.

              What’s your next act of sheer desperation?

              *** WILL YOU REMAIN A SNIVELING PUSSY ON THOSE IN-CON-VEEEEEEN-YENT QUESTIONS?

              1. Yes, Hihn, informed people know that you can’t compare mass murder statistics between countries, but that you can compare homicide rates by race within the US.

                Fascist propagandists like you falsely claim the opposite.

                1. And he says *I* confuse homicides with mass shootings!

          2. Brainwashed Dumbfuck Hihnsano spams his nonsense, rubs himself out to gun bans.

    3. You can buy flamethrowers from Lowes.

  21. Hmmmm… a WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary for the security of a FREE STATE…

    Could it be as simple as when the people have the right to arms, an uppity militia will find the people shooting back?

    1. Could it be as simple as when the people have the right to arms, an uppity militia will find the people shooting back?

      1) AND DYING! BY LAW
      2 THERE IS NO SUCH MILITIA

      NOW TELL US WHY, YOU THINK WE STILL USE A MILITIA TO DEFEND THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

      You REALLY don’t know that has long been done by an Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard???

      Why do you defend the violent aggression launched by neo-nazis and white nationalist in Charlottesville?

      In 1957, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus activated his state militia, armed force to keep 9 black kids from enrolling in Little Rock’s Central High. President Eisenhower sent federal troops, authorized to use force if necessary. Faubus caved, and later “justified” his actions as defending the voters of Arkansas from an over-reaching judiciary .

      We know that Ron Paul stands with Faubus.
      Who do your stand with — Faubus? Or Eisenhower and the Constitution.

      1. Whoa dude, you have issues.

        B

          1. Hey, Brainwashed FUCKTARDS, bend over. This will jame up your as with less pain

            pro bonobo Whoa dude, you have issues.

            R Mac< He’s a psychopath.

            YOU asked for this, assholes

            Ron Paul — super fascist
            I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courtsHomosexuals would have been the first entire group … DENIED THE DEFENSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS … since slavery.

            He’s also full of shit on the 10th Amendment

            Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference.

            Did he FUCK YOU on that, too.
            WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS? REALLY?
            STATES HAVE POWERS NEVER DELEGATED? REALLY?

            The NINTH AMENDMENT limits the 10th, so he’s FULL OF SHIT.

            “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”We have rights which may not be denied or disparaged by ANY level of government.

            CAN YOU LIST THOSE RIGHTS? (sneer)
            The Founders INTENTIONALLY refused to name them. Unlike you, they were EDUCATED on how rights had always evolved. and always would … by courts and tribunals ACKNOWLEDGING them … as new abuses arose … NOT “INVENTING” RIGHT … WHICH IS THEIR FUCKING JOB … SINCE LONG BEFORE OUR FOUNDING, IN THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

            Pay attention. People’s rights are superior to government powers, on a government of delegated powers. So the 9th trumps the 10th.

            RON PAUL IS THE NEW JIM CROW.
            “States rights” is NOT federalism. It was invented by southern racists, in the Jim Crow era, to deny the Judiciary’s Constitutional powers as an EQUAL branch of government.

            The Orval Faubus example and BULLSHIT excuse I cited. That is WHY Ron Paul stands with Orval Faubus and the KKK … AGAINST Eisenhower and the Constitution..

            AND SO DO YOU.

            You DARE to call me a psychopath, you psycho asshole.
            I am calling you out, RETRACT AND APOLOGIZE — BOTH OF YOU — or you are CONFESSED JIM CROWS AS BAD AS RON PAUL.
            And Rand,

            Your choice.

            1. Corrected indents

              Ron Paul — super fascist

              “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts

              Homosexuals would have been the first entire group … DENIED THE DEFENSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS … since slavery.

              Fags and niggers. (sarc)
              SHAME ON HIM … AND ON YOU

              1. “Corrected indents”

                Thanks, it was the indents being a bit off that made it the giant incoherent steaming pile of crazy it was.

                1. Thanks, it was the indents being a bit off that made it the giant incoherent steaming pile of crazy it was.

                  Thanks!
                  Ron Paul has been a giant incoherent steaming pile of crazy for decades … as I PROVED

                  But he’s never described himself as a … BUTTPLUG 🙂

                  1. This does make we wonder…

                  2. Above several posts:
                    Oh my goodness! Hihn and turd trying to agree!
                    How…………..
                    fun.
                    The both of you:
                    Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

            2. “Your choice.”

              Great.
              My choice is you fuck off and die, Hihn.

              1. WTF?

                You DARE to call me a psychopath, you psycho asshole.
                I am calling you out, RETRACT AND APOLOGIZE — BOTH OF YOU — or you are CONFESSED JIM CROWS AS BAD AS RON PAUL.
                And Rand,
                Your choice.

                Great.
                My choice is you fuck off and die, Hihn.

                NON-RESPONSIVE
                COWARDLY EVASION

                THIS is what the whiny coward ran away from … DOCUMENTED PROOF! (links in the original https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995851 )

                Ron Paul — super fascist
                “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts

                Homosexuals would have been the first entire group … DENIED THE DEFENSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS … since slavery. SEVO DEFENDS IT

                Ron is also full of shit on the 10th Amendment

                Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference.

                WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS? REALLY?
                STATES HAVE POWERS NEVER DELEGATED? REALLY?

                The NINTH AMENDMENT limits the 10th, so he’s FULL OF SHIT.

                “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                We have rights which may not be denied or disparaged by ANY level of government.

                CAN YOU LIST THOSE RIGHTS? (sneer)
                The Founders INTENTIONALLY refused to name them. Unlike you, they were EDUCATED on how rights had always evolved. and always would … by courts and tribunals ACKNOWLEDGING them … as new abuses arose … NOT “INVENTING” RIGHT … WHICH IS THEIR FUCKING JOB … SINCE LONG BEFORE OUR FOUNDING, IN THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

                Pay attention. People’s rights are superior to government powers, on a government of delegated powers. So the 9th trumps the 10th.

                RON PAUL IS THE NEW JIM CROW.
                “States rights” is NOT federalism. It was invented by southern racists, in the Jim Crow era, to deny the Judiciary’s Constitutional powers as an EQUAL branch of government
                What does it tell us, when Sevo defends a hate-spewing. bullshittting bigit who SHITS on the core values of individual liberty and our Constitution.. When he DEFENDS denying the defense of Constitutional rights to an entire group?

                Yep, been telling ME that he’s a statist thug that for years. 🙂

                1. Not sure how to respond to that pile of shit. Other than:
                  Fuck off and die, Hihn.

                  1. Not sure how to respond to that pile of shit

                    RON PAUL’S *PROVEN* WORDS ARE A PILE OF SHIT! JAMMED UP YOUR ASS!

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano proving why he’ll die alone and unloved.

            3. “ jame up your as”

              Ramblings of a madman.

          2. He’s something, that’s for sure.

            Apparently, he thinks that because the standing armies of the USA (the organized militia with a steady payroll) are huge and dwarf any unorganized militia that could be mustered, the prefatory clause that in essence states ‘a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state’, he can’t just ignore it as being obsolete.

            If you don’t like the 2nd, there’s a process to amend it. Good luck with that.

      2. More incoherent rants by fascist Hihn

        1. Whoever he is, he is unhinged, with a severely flawed sense of logic.

          1. I occasionally make a comment on a few much more moderated websites. It is very pleasant and easy to read through the comments.

          2. Whoever he is, he is unhinged, with a severely flawed sense of logic

            BE SPECIFIC, SO I CAN CRUSH YOUR SORRY ASS A FIFTH TIME

            WHAT is the flawed logic?
            Or are you just another drive-by assaults?

            1. You’re right: you have no flawed logic because you don’t employ logic at all.

  22. In the grabbiest of gun grabber states, everyone is a member of the militia.

    Illinois Constitution – Article XII – Illinois General Assembly

    SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law

    1. STATE Militia. (snort)
      Now cite the section which says they are to defend America
      And learn what militia means.

      1. You should change your handle to TheLibertyBell( sneer) as cracked as you are.(snort)

        1. FATS OF FURY …. CALLED OUT AS A FRAUD … COLLAPSES!

          STATE Militia. (snort)
          Now cite the section which says they are to defend America

          And learn what militia means.

          FAIL
          COWARDLY DIVERSION.
          WITH AN INFANTILE TRASH MOUTH
          (sneer)

          1. “FATS OF FURY …. CALLED OUT AS A FRAUD … COLLAPSES!”

            Hihn shorts out his keyboard with spittle!
            Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

  23. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Reason seems to be arguing that we can ignore the first clause. Everything relevant is in the second clause, which we can also ignore, however, if those arms are too deadly.

    1. “Reason seems to be arguing that we can ignore the first clause.”

      You seem to be making up nonsense, as you commonly do.

      1. “You seem to be making up nonsense”

        I’m glad you see it for what it is. But it comes straight from the article, to give credit where it’s due.

        1. No, what I quoted did NOT come from the article; more nonsense.

          1. “what I quoted did NOT come from the article”

            You can always read it again if you didn’t catch it the first time. Take your time and don’t be afraid to ask questions if you are still feeling confused.

    2. Your can ignore the entire 2A, since it doesn’t grant rights people didn’t already have under the Constitution. The US is a nation of enumerated government powers, not a nation of enumerated rights.

      The real question is: where does the constitution delegate the power to restrict arms ownership to government?

      1. The US is a nation of enumerated government powers, not a nation of enumerated right

        IT”S BOTH!!!

        Your can ignore the entire 2A, since it doesn’t grant rights people didn’t already have under the Constitution

        Do we believe a proven psycho?
        Ot Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, anmf the founding fathers

        And your full of shit. It was added to assure that a citizen’s militia would be the form of national defense, because a standing army was opposed

        Oh, yeah, do we also believe a BLOWHARD over known History (to the educated)?

        US v Miller (1939)

        The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

        The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.

        Another concern was that a rival faction could activate a standing army by merely passing a law to ban or regulate the “common use” weapons, …. on top of (Scalia’s words) “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

        1. It’s more than just that. It’s a continuation of our English right to arms. Which is based off our natural right to defend ourselves. This allows us a means to defend ourselves property and other freedoms when societal laws fail to protect us. But as at George Tucker noted it’s without all the restrictions the English had on it. It doesn’t just have to do with militias and fighting government tyranny.

      2. “The real question is: where does the constitution delegate the power to restrict arms ownership to government?”

        Maybe the constitution doesn’t have all the answers, whether the question is real or not. I suspect the constitution was written by and for a higher calibre or person that are living today, the kind of person that can be trusted with firearms without fear of them going berserk with them.

    3. The ability to read books, being necessary to Mtrueman’s child’s future salary, the right of Mtrueman to purchase prenatal vitamins, shall not be infringed.

      The first part is meant to strengthen the second part. This is the reason (or the most important reason among a set of reasons) we are taking the time to carve our this right at all. They, in 1791, thought that was an extremely compelling reason. Perhaps we, in 2019 don’t think that reason is as persuasive.

      We probably also are not particularly persuaded that forcible quartering of soldiers in people’s homes in times of peace is a significant problem. Definitely not in the top 3, or top 10. That doesn’t mean courts should allow it just because Congress wants to save some money on barracks.

      1. In Heller, Scalia says you’ve got it backward (or something) on the prefatory clause

        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995612

        That link also documents Reason’s misinformation here, on that same topic

        Scalia’s view on this draws on the SCOTUS ruling. US v Miller (1939), the precedent for using the prefatory clause to define limits on the type of weapons protected by 2A.

      2. “This is the reason (or the most important reason among a set of reasons) we are taking the time to carve our this right at all. ”

        It seems to be the only reason. Unless you can find other reasons similarly outlined in the document.

  24. My understanding is that the copy of the amendment that was ratified and hence official did not have that comma after “militia”, which is grammatically dumb and adds to the confusion.

    1. And about as crazy as saying the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified … unanimously … in the ninth year of our Republic … IN ARABIC!!!!
      THEN translated!!!

      Because the treaty CRUSHES the Christo-Fascists (not real Christians) Negotiated under Washington. Unanimously ratified under, and signed by … Adams.

      “… the United States was not founded, in any sense, on the Christian religion …”

      So .. Separation is proven by our first THREE Presidents (Jefferson’s Wall of Separation) and the unanimous US Senate in the 9th year of our Republic (roughly half of which were SIGNING Founders)

      NON-separation has … NOBODY … but some dishonest preachers and televangelists, exploiting their followers’ fa.

      P.S. The (un)Holy Inquisition was committing moral atrocities at our founding, up until roughly our Civil War. It was EXPLICITLY a corrupt alliance of church and state, with the state providing punishment as judged by the church. Many came her to ESCAPE that religious persecution. And we’d suffered our own Salem Witchcraft Trials.

        1. See the pattern here, by Sevo?

          Fuck off and die, Hihn

          He says that EVERY time he’s PROVEN full of shit … documented and linked to original sources …. several times on this page alone.

          FACTS are his mortal enemy.

          And what sort of SLIME … shouts down any and all opposing views … like the snowflakes on the the left …. but THOSE snowflakes don’t wish DEATH to those who fail to SUBMIT to their authoritarian diktats.

          You may even see here … as I’ve seen hundreds of times … that Sevo is PROUD to be subhuman slime. (NOT kidding)

          He’s the cyber equivalent of a drive-by assassin.
          More than a cyber-bully, a stalking a cyber terrorist
          NOTE THAT HE LAUNCHED AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT HERE.
          And will likely repeat it!

          (Reason is the ONLY major political web site which tolerates this. aggression, and even nurtures it).

  25. There are additional definitions, or usages, of the word ‘regulated’ that were more common in the late 1700’s than currently. One of those definitions, or usages, is to indicate that the sights on a firearm, which determine the point of aim, are lined up to coincide with the point of impact of the projectile, at a specific distance and with a specific type of ammunition. Another of those definitions, or usages, is to indicate that the barrels on a multi-barreled weapon, say a double-barreled shotgun or a three-barreled drilling*, would all shoot to the same point of aim, again at a specific distance and with specific ammunition.

    So saying that a militia is ‘well-regulated’ could easily be interpreted to mean that the members of said militia could hit where they aimed; that they are good marksmen.

    While I have rarely seen this usage of the word ‘regulated’ used in the context of interpreting the Second Amendment, that could be simply because many Constitutional scholars are not necessarily well versed in firearms terminology and are not aware of these other meanings.

    * A drilling (pronounced DRY-ling or DRAY-ling) is a long gum with two side-by-side shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel centered underneath them. The guns, and the word ‘drilling’ are of Germanic origin, with the ‘dri-’ part taken from the German word for ‘three.’

    1. (lol) That’s regulating a gun … not the militia.
      The Second Amendment suffers from as much crazy bullshit as … Medicare for All!

      https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

      1. You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

    2. Thanks I never heard of a drilling gun before. Learn something new every day.

  26. My argument for those who insist that the Founders never meant for people to privately own firearms is this:
    Point to one example where the Federal Government or a State tried to ban firearms, especially after the State Guards were set up.

    1. The founders didn’t delegate the power to limit weapon ownership to government, hence they didn’t intend government to be able to restrict ownership by citizens.

      1. The founders didn’t delegate the power to limit weapon ownership to governmentAGAIN, Scalia’s Heller says you’re full of shit ,.;. and he was reaffirming a 1939 Constitutional precedent, US v Miller..

        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995612

        NOYB2 will likely throw his typical raging hissy fit.
        The link is for those who care about truth. Or for anyone who’d like to spend a few seconds seeing, with their own eyes, that he’s a bellowing blowhard, a/k/a a cyber-bully.

        1. OOPS

          The founders didn’t delegate the power to limit weapon ownership to governmentAGAIN, Scalia’s Heller says you’re full of shit ,.;. and he was reaffirming a 1939 Constitutional precedent, US v Miller..

          1. hahaha

            The founders didn’t delegate the power to limit weapon ownership to government

            AGAIN, Scalia’s Heller says you’re full of shit ,.;. and he was reaffirming a 1939 Constitutional precedent, US v Miller..

            1. Now he’s just yelling at himself.

              1. It’s like a dog that will chase his own tail when you show it to him.

        2. SCOTUS in the early 20th century said that forced sterilizations were constitutional, as were segregation, confiscation of private property, and numerous other things. Fascists like you loved that sort of shit, Hihn.

          SCOTUS defines what is the law of the land; SCOTUS does not define what the founders actually intended or wanted. In fact, many supreme court justices have stated quite clearly that they don’t give a f*ck about what the founders intended.

          1. NOYB2 will likely throw his typical raging hissy fit.
            The link is for those who care about truth. Or for anyone who’d like to spend a few seconds seeing, with their own eyes, that he’s a bellowing blowhard, a/k/a a cyber-bully

            CONFIRMED.
            AND CRAZIER!!!

            SCOTUS in the early 20th century said that forced sterilizations were constitutional, as were segregation, confiscation of private property, and numerous other things. Fascists like you loved that sort of shit, Hihn

            NOW HE JUSTIFIES AN EMPEROR BECAUSE … HUMANS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE … WHICH MEANS HIS WORDS ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND …
            …. BECAUSE HE — BEING GOD — IS INFALLIBLE
            … AND FUCK CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

            IN A FREE SOCIETY, YOU CANNOT BELLOW LIKE SOME POWER CRAZED ASSHOLE … YOU MUST GO THROUGH THE PROCESS … ANY PROCESS …TO SECURE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

            ***OR GET THE FUCK OUT (emigrate) STOP BEING A LIBERTY MOOCH … SUCKING OFF THE FREEDOM CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY … PEOPLE YOU CLAIM HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SO.

            TELL US AGAIN WHAT FASCISM IS, CHUMP

            (posted in defense of MORE aggression … by a POOR LOSER, with a Hitler complex …. aka a bellowing blowhard)

  27. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone.

    “Twenty-four hours, being the measure of a day, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  28. I’m not sure the article does justice to the contemporary meaning of “well regulated” during the time of the amendment’s drafting.
    مشکلات دوران نوجوانی

  29. Regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say, it is a natural right of all people to be able to defend themselves against imminent harm. Period.

    1. it is a natural right of all people to be able to defend themselves

      “Exactly! That’s why we’re mandating Medicare For All!”

    2. The constitution is a fine document but I do not need a constitution to tell me I can eat my fries any way I damn well please even that Canadian concoction.

      1. I had poutine with a fried egg on top at Duckfat in Portland. The eastern one. Oh my…. fries cooked in duck fat with duck gravy…. it was almost a religious experience.

        1. It is NOT about the Constitution

          It IS about right-wing THUGS who …like left-wing THUGS … SQUAT AND SHIT ON CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

          THAT IS THEIR SHARED TOTALITARIAN MENTALITY.

          Today, we now have TWO Know-Nothing parties.

  30. U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

    (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.
    (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.

    1. Barfalot FAILS.
      Even Scalia RIDICULES HIM.

      NOTHING THERE CHANGES 80 YEARS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, that protected weapons are MODERN version of those in common use at our founding, and brought from home for militia duty.

      See the relevant SCOTUS rulings, edited to the key parts to save you time, plus simple explanations, complete with links and page numbers for all citations.

      It is lengthy, nearly 4,000 words, because that much bullshit and misinformation (including Reason, here). Scan it like a magazine to newspaper, looking for boldface headings to personalise your interests and concerns.

      https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

  31. OT – Apparently there’s been some sort of racist, homophobic gang-rape at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury. University President John Clark is quite appropriately outraged:

    “I am both shocked and immensely saddened about this sick and outrageous behavior, especially since our university has worked so hard to be a warm, diverse and caring community for all, no matter their race, color, gender, sexual orientation/identification, disability and age.” “All members of our community should feel comfortable, safe and secure at the university.”

    https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-hate-messages-western-connecticut-state-university-20191101-zjnyo2u46ndvhpdlv4okkbs3le-story.html

    UPDATE: Wait a minute, it wasn’t a gang rape after all –

    “The flyers, typed and printed on white paper, were left around a residence and classroom hall just off the WCSU main green on the midtown campus on White Street in Danbury, university spokesman Paul Steinmetz said.

    “One flyer read “It’s OK to be white” and the other read “Islam is right about women,” Steinmetz said.”

    Which leads to the question: What would the President say if it *were* a gang rape? Would it even be possible for him to turn his outrage meter any higher in response to such an event?

    1. All kidding aside, what do you think about those flyers?

      1. I’d suggest finding out who was going through the dorm in a troll costume and finding out if they had any connection to the flyers.

  32. From Austin “Live and Let Live”, 1986: Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifies, in clause 15, that “Congress shall have the power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to… repel Invasions.” Article IV, Section 4, charges the United States with the responsibility to protect each of the states from invasion. Finally, Amendment II of the Bill of Rights guarantees that our right to “keep and bear arms,” within the context of a well-regulated militia, “shall not be infringed.”
    While it is true that Article II of the main body of the document grants the President the power to make treaties (Section 2, clause 2), and it is also true that these treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, paragraph 2), it is nowhere stated that this treaty-making power shall override the Bill of Rights or the main body of the Constitution. In fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, specifies only that the treaty-making power takes precedence over “anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Furthermore, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article I allows the states to defend themselves if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The aspect of 2A that irritated Soviet dupes was that we get to have SDI. That it swats Kristallnacht laws is icing on the cake. –libertariantranslator

  33. Did the states agree to give up their militias in 1789?

    If not, did they agree to let the federal government control the arms of their citizens?

  34. The 2A doesn’t guarantee any rights that aren’t already in the Constitution.

    Does the government have the constitutional power to restrict gun ownership? No. End of story.

    1. “Does the government have the constitutional power to restrict gun ownership? No. End of story.”

      The left assumes the constitution is the grantor of rights and searches it in the hopes of finding it does not grant what they don’t like.
      The response is not difficult; there is no ‘constitutional’ right for me to have a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark.

      1. The left assumes the constitution is the grantor of rights and searches it in the hopes of finding it does not grant what they don’t like.

        Where do they find the right to privacy?

        Right, so they are illogical hypocrites.

  35. Informative article.

    Progressives rewrite, reconfigure and reject (where necessary) history in order to fit a contemporary narrative. That’s how they roll.

    Stay strong America. Defend the 1A and 2A to the death.

    Democrats and progressives treat The Constitution like Homer did with the Hallowed Sacred Parchment.

    1. “Stay strong America. Defend the 1A and 2A to the death”

      I dunno Rufus. If it came to that probably not much left worth defending. Maybe head down to Costa Rica, or north. Got any job openings?

      1. Things to do in Winnipeg when you’re dead.

  36. OT but relates to the function of government and those who think they can control everything from their perches in DC.

    Goats.

    The Reagan library was saved from fire by goats. Apparently the library had hired a herd of goats to eat the scrub in the surrounding area creating a natural firebreak. Firefighters were thus able to control the fire and spare the library.

    Was thinking that the goat is a remarkable animal. The goat just does what it wants to do, mostly eat and make baby goats, and pretty much takes care if itself. So here we have this herd of goats needing no direction, no special programs, no mandates. Just leave them alone and a problem was solved.

    1. Tasty curry goat too!

      1. Yup I was in DC for 6 weeks once living in a hotel. An educational course. Was this Indian carry out place down the block and ate that kind of stuff about every night for dinner.

  37. Poor Hihn and his crazy sock puppets.

    1. What I can’t figure out is why an authoritarian like him pretends to be a libertarian. The fact that he actually at one point had some sort of function in some state Libertarian party tells you what a sorry state the Libertarian party is in.

  38. You don’t have to look any further than the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775 to see that militias can hold there own against regular troops, in the proper circumstances. That was before the Continental Army came in to being. 2400 militiamen faced off against 3000 British troops, and although they “lost” the battle, they had 1/2 the casualties of the British. If the militia hadn’t run out of ammunition the British probably would have had to give up the assault and withdraw.

    1. Are you saying a militia could do so today?
      If not, everyone already knew that.

      Then again, the rough equivalent f militia kicked our as in VietNam, to a humiliating degree.

      1. Hihn arguing with himself, and still losing.

      2. “”Then again, the rough equivalent f militia kicked our as in VietNam, to a humiliating degree.””

        By using modern day weapons.

      3. The NVA was led by one of the greatest military leaders in history Vo Nguyen Giap. He understood not only tactics, he had clear strategic goals.

        I have read multiple accounts of what happened at Dien Bien Phu. The French were a formidable fighting force. They badly underestimated the Viet Minh.

        Noticed a report that Iran has the centrifuges up and spinning.

  39. Microstamping essentially bans common use guns and is logically unconstitutional.

  40. Has nothing to do with this

    My dumbass stuff. Early Monday morning I surf old music. I have no idea why I post it.

    I love Hard southern rock. Lynard Skynard did this garage band favorite. I still like it. The tempo just goes to 11. Fast as a challenger with your foot on the floor. Van Zant just gets your pulse moving. I know overplayed.

    The band had, we know what happened. Plane crash. Sometimes driving to the job on a morning this was better than coffee.

    Free bird

    https://youtu.be/D0W1v0kOELA

    1. “”Free bird””

      Is NOT the song I wanna hear.

      1. So give me something.

        There are a lot more somethings better.

        I like drums. So Burns in the studio has those headphones clamped down and just grooving with VanZant. Good day for them. It is not sophisticated polyrhythm.

  41. I am making $95 bucks hours for working from home And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. Now and Earn extra money in part time , I’m just so happy that I found out about it…………★↓↓↓↓ Click Here SITE ↓↓↓↓★
    Read more <===

  42. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the STATES have an armed & trained citizenry (the Militia) which can be used, when push comes to shove, to defend the STATES from the federal gov’t and from the federal gov’ts disastrous policies [e.g. unrestricted immigration]. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (James Madison).
    States no longer have a Militia. With the Dick Act of 1903, the States surrendered the Militia (over which they had control) and allowed it to be federalized – put under federal control. The States’ “national guard” are merely adjuncts of the federal military.
    The States did it for the money. Yes, they got federal funds for allowing the federal gov’t to take over their State Militia.
    It is your State governments which sold you down the river.
    PH

    1. ranrod, the notion that the Constitution sanctified insurrection against the sovereign People is not only ridiculous, but also contradicted in the Constitution.

  43. >> Still, many activists and legal scholars, along with at least two of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in Heller, believe the Second Amendment, properly construed, never guaranteed an individual right at all

    The Bill of Rights only addresses three classes of people. Congress, the states, and the people. The latter is of course individual people. The idea that “the people” is a synonym for “the states” is absurd. The right to bear arms is an individual right because “the people” is nothing more than a set of individuals, who are not the state.

  44. The gun grabbers can argue the words and intentions of the 2nd all they want. At the end of the day should they ever try to confiscate guns under the guise of whatever reason they dream up they will be summarily shot, them seem to keep overlooking this little detail, like Warren overlooks tax increase for her fantasy land plans. Want to fantasy plan, try to disarm America and see how well that works out for you.

    1. The don’t need to come to your house and start American Civil War version 2.0
      All they have to do is declare possession of an “assault rifle” a felony.
      You will then never be able to shoot it at any range or public land or you will be arrested. Even on private land, you might get stopped on the way and arrested.
      So it sits in your safe unto you get red flagged (and arrested) or you die.
      Then your wife and kids have to decide if they want this felonious contraband in the house.
      If your kid keeps it, his kids will be horrified to be in danger of arrest for something they cant even be certain it works.
      So they will get rid of it.
      I hope they do not sell it to an undercover agent!
      In a few generations, all these guns will be gone.

      1. All they have to do is declare possession of an “assault rifle” a felony.

        Such rifles have NO protection in 2a .. since 1939 … as confirmed by Scalia in Heller.

        EVERY relevant word is cited here, with links and p;age numbers to BOTH rulings.
        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        You must be quite young, if you don’t know the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” — which had a 10-year limit, expired only 15 years ago. The NRA was powerless. Such a ban had been fully constitutional for 55 years.

        The don’t need to come to your house and start American Civil War version 2.0

        Also bass ackwards. That Civil War would be started by Rastaman … with the support of fewer than 10% of Americans … when as many as … 25-50? law enforcement or National Guard … as a majority of Americans CHEER his death, in defense ol America and our Constitution.

        I thought only progressives worked so hard at fomenting hysteria.
        Not really, As libertarians have known and said for over 50 years … Left – Right = Zero … and a growing majority of Americans agree.

        It would be truly tragic, if people were shot to death, or bombed from the air, from having been brainwashed by a political elite..

  45. “”the right of the people.” When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties,”

    Again and again and again, the folks who wrote the Constitution were not a bunch of illiterate peasants. They were some of the most well educated, thoughtful people of their (or any?) time. Their word choice was careful and precise, and their gift is a unified whole. The prime issue that they weaseled out of dealing with (slavery) was kicked down the road in a pragmatic (if tragic) manner. The rest of the original Constitution and BoR is a well crafted, unified machine developed to control that most dangerous of servants: government. The BoR recognizes the rights of individuals, except in one portion of one clearly written Amendment (10).

    1. The rest of the original Constitution and BoR is a well crafted

      Which is why the originalist of his day, Scalia, affirmed the 1939 ruling that 2a protects only the modern version of weapons “in common use … brought from home for militia service, at ratification.

      His explanation of the language is both precise and simple. On this page at https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

  46. “To them (the founders), the two ideas were inseparable.”

    Nope. The founders did separate those ideas. The militia idea they put in the Constitution. The bear arms for other purposes idea they left to the states. They had good reason to do that. No particular formulation of a private right to arms could have been ratified. Leaving it to the states enabled different formulations among the states, to meet local preferences.

    Also, Scalia. If you rely on Scalia for historical insight, you are doing it wrong. As history, Heller would earn failing marks in any graduate seminar.

    1. The italics were meant to end at the end of Heller, not to emphasize the entire assertion about Scalia’s historical incompetence. That speaks for itself.

      1. Considering Scalia cited actual historical examples, your assertion that this was “incompetence” speaks more about proglydyte gun-grabbing desires than it does what you’re claiming.

        1. DOCUMENTED PROOF: RED ROCKS A BRAINWASHED GUNTARD … AND PSYCHO BULLY … WITH YOUR OWN EYES
          https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

          A FIVE PART POST .. NEARLY 4,000 WORDS … ADDRESSES RED ROCKS’ BULLSHIT THROUGH THE YEARS ON SCALIA’S HELLER AND THE PRECEDENT HE AFFIRMED … US V MILLER (1939)

          2A has protected ONLY modern versions of the weapons “in common use at the time … brought from home for militia service”

          For rifles, that was a musket … the equivalent of what many call “hunting rifles.”

          RED ROCKS IS A BULLY AND A THUG … REPEATED UNPROVOKED ASSAULTS … THE ALT-RIGHT

          AND A COWARD … EASILY PROVEN
          1) Do a page search for his name.
          2) Count how many unprovoked assaults against me.
          3) MOST SNEER THAT HE KICKED MY ASS (OR EQUIVALENT) ON 2A
          4) Count each time, on a paper next to you.
          5) Now go to the link above … the PROOF he’s fill of shit … on Scalia … every word linked to the rulings .. plus the page numbers to make it easy for you.
          6) Scroll quickly through my 5- part proof
          7) Count Red Rocks replied THERE.
          8) You will see . … NONE … not a single one .,… WHY NOT?

          Cuz he snarls and rages ,… but he’s also a WHINY PUSSY.
          ASSAULTS FOR TWO FULL DAYS. but NEVER to.a comment with links and page numbers PROVING HIM A PSYCHO.

          Six other alt-right thugs … also cowardly pussies …also stalking me down the page with unprovoked assaults … ALSO NOTHING AGAINST THE PROOF TWO DAYS AGO.

          HOW MANY OF THEM ARE RED ROCKS … using socks to SECRETLY increase his assaults?
          HOW MANY ARE SEPARATE BULLIES, ALSO SNARLING AND RAGING … AND ALSO COWARDLY PUSSIES?

          The Authoritarian Right … AMERICA’S BROWNSHIRTS … not seen since the shame of McCarthyism

          ====

          How ma

          1. How many would deny there was an “Assault Weapons Ban” … for ten long years … that the NRA was POWERLESS against … BECAUSE THE BAN HAD BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE 1939 ….and could ONLY be repealed or expire … the 10-year law expired … ALSO POWERLESS TO REPEAL IT,

            Severa

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again.

  47. “Heller merely says the government can’t enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.”

    DC v Heller, decided 26 Jun 2008,
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    … traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    NOT limited to self defense within the home.

    INCLUDING self defense within the home.

    In informing its holding, the Supreme Court considered state constitutional guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms. Under court rulings, state attorney general opinions, and statements of legislative intent Tennessee Constitution Article I Section 26 protects traditional and lawful purposes such as protecting livestock from predators, hunting, self-defense, military marksmanship practice, recrearional shooting, vollection of curios and keepsakes, etc.

    1. Naaman, what has any of that got to do with the founders, and what they did with the U.S. Constitution? I am not saying Scalia did not write what he wrote. I am saying what Scalia wrote misinterpreted the history of the U.S. Constitution. Your quote, where it references state constitutions, supports my point.

      1. I am saying what Scalia wrote misinterpreted the history of the U.S. Constitution.

        And you’d be wrong.

        1. NOW RED ROCKS CONFIRMS THAT SCALIA REAFFIRMED THE 1939 RULING THAT ONLY PROTECTED THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF WEAPONS USED BY THE MILITIA AT RATIFICATION.

          FOR RIFLES, THAT WAS A MUSKET .. MODERN VERSION WHAT SOME NOW CALL “HUNTING RIFLES”

          ALL RELEVANT PORTIONS OF BOTH RULINGS ARE ON THIS PAGE … EVERY SINGLE WORD LINKED TO THE RULINGS … WITH THE PAGE NUMBERS TO SEE FOR YOURSELF .. WITH YOU VERY OWN EYES … EVERY MAJOR LIE BY THE NRA AND ITS BRAINWASHED PUPPETS.

          https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano ignores the fact that Scalia confirmed that his desired handgun ban is unconstitutional.

      2. I am saying what Scalia wrote misinterpreted the history of the U.S. Constitution.

        How would you know?

        Your quote, where it references state constitutions, supports my point.Nothing he quotes says anything about state constitutions. His own reference to research proves you exactly wrong.

        BOTH Scalia and the 1939 precedent include far more research, all disproving you.

        Scalia

        2(f)
        … United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
        Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

        There were bans and regulations at the time, and after ratification.
        One MASSIVE and common lie is that “at the time” means today.
        That is DEMOLISHED in Part Two of the link below.

        Scalia is revered as the “originalist” of his day. Who are you? And why comment so forcefully, on a ruling you obviously never read.

        https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

        The relevant words from BOTH rulings, complete with even links and page numbers for the full ruling, ar the SCOTUS web site..

        Absolute and undeniable proof.

    2. SCOTUS decides the law of the land based on legal theories; it does not decide based on what the founders intended, nor is it an authority for historical facts like what the founders intended.

      IOW, your comment about Scalia is absolutely irrelevant to the intent of the founders. You merely observe that SCOTUS can take away constitutionally guaranteed rights based on dubious legal theories; and it obviously can do so.

    3. BUT 2A CAN enforce any laws that ban any weapons NOT PROTECTED. Protected weapons ate ONLY the modern equivalents of those weapons “in common use” … AT RATIFICATION … “brought from home for militia service” Since 1939 (US v MILLER)

      See the “Assault Weapons Ban,” which the NRA was POWERLESS against for an entire decade. Until the ban expired

      Not sure who you quoted there ,… but Reason published some massive lies here, as PROVEN at this link: https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

      See links and even page numbers to BOTH relevant rulings.
      *I* have nothing to hide.

  48. “But whether we currently have a well-regulated militia doesn’t control whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.”

    The problem is the meaning of the words “well-regulated” at that time it was written. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

    A well-regulated militia was everyone not in the military with a working firearm.

  49. On 22 October 1776, George Washington wrote to one of his officers, Major General Philip Schuyler:

    “I am unacquainted with the Extent of Your Works and consequently of the Number of Men necessary to man them. If your present Numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all Means advise Your making up the Deficiency out of the best regulated and equipped Militia.”

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-07-02-0009

    I don’t get the sense that George meant he should find the militia with the most trigger locks and longest waiting period to buy a musket.

  50. So are gun control enthusiasts saying that without the second amendment that the militia would not be able to keep and bear arms? So if they were to fight an enemy they would be confined to using sticks and rocks? And that the founders of the republic, some of the smartest men of their time, thought that the Constitution needed an amendment to let the militia use more than sticks and rocks? Is that what they think?

    1. drisco304, I think, on the basis of considerable historical evidence, that the founders included among them slave owning southerners, and anti-slavery northerners. The militia idea was particularly important to the southerners, who understood it as indispensable. They lived in constant fear of servile rebellion, which the militias would either discourage or suppress. I suggest those southerners were wary lest anti-slavery northerners deny them militias. Not arms for militias, but militias themselves. You do not need to go farther than that to understand the purpose for the 2A. And it is an interpretation which has the advantage of agreeing more closely with the wording.

  51. The term “regulated” is misunderstood by many (including history academics). There were not “regulations” as we know them today and is often used in the modern lexicon. A check of any current Webster’s dictionary will confirm that “well regulated” would mean in good working order and in ready condition. The old “Regulator Clock” is an example of how the term was used in prior times.

    1. The founders weren’t talking about clocks, but groups of armed men. Regulation means military discipline, order, ranks, and other unmobbish things.

      1. unmobbish

        Nope

        1. “Nope”

          I guess glocks it is then.

  52. Its really important to take care of chinchilla pets. Make sure to keep them in their cages to prevent them from running away from you and maintain emotional bound with them.
    Chinchilla cages

  53. Firestick is the hot topic in 2019 as everybody know that we can get access to all the date for free. Anyway amazing work.
    jailbreak firestick

  54. Searched all the internet but couldn’t found a well researched information like here. I just want to appreciate your hard work.
    Myindigocard

  55. The article states that the court “found many restrictions on the right”. Where, exactly? It couldn’t have been the common or natural law. It certainly isn’t the constitution, anywhere. So, where did they find these? There are no other rights that the court has recognized a power to restrict a right before the commission of a crime. They don’t tape your mouth in a crowded theater so that you won’t yell “fire”.
    There there is this word in Article I; “provide”. Does that mean to provide funds and facilities? Can we turn to the use of synonyms and say that “provide” means to do the things we think are what we have a power to do that isn’t spelled out even when the use of a synonym in one place invites the use throughout the document to the destruction of it? How about that part about training according to the discipline prescribed by Congress? Does the power to prescribe the methods of training extend to other subjects and areas relevant to the right? Or is that another “finding”? I don’t think this is as hard as the court has made it nor am I inclined to think the court has been especially clever about how it has restricted the right. Get it straight. The right preserves the power of the people to conduct war on an equal footing with any other war making entity be it foreign or domestic. Shocking and true. Quit running away from that.

    1. It can bePosting from TOTAL IGNORANCE … SURMISING ruling you NEVER READ — OR EVEN SAW … can be dangerous,

      See the relevant SCOTUS rulings, edited to the key parts to save you time, plus simple explanations, complete with links and page numbers for all citations.

      It is lengthy, nearly 4,000 words, because that much bullshit and misinformation (including Reason, here). Scan it like a magazine to newspaper, looking for boldface headings to personalise your interests and concerns.

      https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

      There are NO restrictions on the right, Reason LIED, several times, on Heller, at times shamefully.

      There are limits to WHICH weapons are protected. I’ll combine both rulings to keep it simple as to why ONLY modern versions of the weapons “in common use” at ratification … for rifles, that means single shot only … which is WHY the NRA was totally powerless against the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 long years — until its 10-year duration expired. The bam had been constitutional since 1939, and could only expire or repealed.

      Why the limits> Despite mountains of bullshit of bullshit, both rulings had many pages of HISTORICAL DATA … mostly laws in the various states. THAT is what the the times were like.

      Now

      1) The original ruling, 1939, includes the very reason for 2A. They did not want a standing army, AND they did not want any later chance that the state militias would be disarmed to support a standing army. So, by THAT decision, the founders KNOWINGLY limited the right to weapons in common use at the time, brought from home .. which effectively EXCLUDED military-type weapons. Unlike now, there was not THAT much difference between military and personal weapons. Military grade was more costly for the vast majority of citizens, but the distinction and purpose are critical.

      2) Scalia noted the “history” of banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” Which was never challenged after ratification. Also at the time. the feds would not dictate to states … either way on guns.

      3) Both rulings had lengthy lists of gun regulations in effect at the time, which were not challenged after 2A. Later, the “Old West” is known, to history buffs, as having strict regulations in many jurisdictions — at a time when “open carry” meant public gun duels and the like.

      Adding ALL that together conveys the prevailing views at the time of ratification. “Originalism” includes what words meant at the time, and Scalia was THE “originalist” of his day… and ranked no less than 2nd as the most conservative — which may be why “gun nuts” lie so much about what HE ruled.

      When I first read Heller, *I* too was stunned at what he did and how he justified it. And I’m libertarian, conservative on economic issues only And independent of either tribe.

  56. Doherty writes: “In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of two men who violated the National Firearms Act by transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines.”

    This is a misleading understanding of the 1939 Miller case.
    Miller, in fact, successfully moved to have the charge of violating the NFA dismissed at the District Court trial.
    The government appealed to the Supreme Court and, because Miller had no attorney there to argue for him, the Court bought the Government’s argument and reversed.
    That’s why the 2nd Amendment, up until Heller and subsequently McDonald, was consistently misinterpreted and misapplied by every court that encountered it.

    1. WOW! What massive crock of NRA bulshit on Miller, and crazy on Heller.

      In Heller, .Scalia AFFIRMED Miller (1939) that 2A protected ONLY modern versions of weapons “in common use, brought from home for militia service. The modern version of a musket. NO semi-automatics.

      On this page, I’ve posted excerpts from both rulings, edited to the key parts to save you time, plus simple explanations, complete with links and page numbers for all citations.

      It is lengthy, nearly 4,000 words, because that much bullshit and misinformation (including Reason, here). Scan it like a magazine to newspaper, looking for boldface headings to personalise your interests and concerns.

      https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

      The most common lie is that 2A protects weapons “in common use,” thus “assault rifles” because there are so many. TOTAL bullshit.

      At the link, I highlight the sentence containing “in common use.” The sentence begins by describing … the 170Os, as does most of that section..

      Like most political entities, the NRA spreads as many lies as it can, to impose their agenda — just like parts of the left.

      .

      1. The bullshit is the argument that the 2A is applicable to only 18th century firearms. I suppose you think the 1A is applicable only to pamphleteers and news paper editors? A militia member would be expected to acquire a rifle that is equivalent to that in current use by the regular army. He would also be expected to be proficient in its use and have ample accouterments and ammunition, should he be called to service. Fast forward to today and every able bodied person between 17 and 45 ought have an M4 or equivalent in their personal possession because they are the militia. Nevertheless, an AR-15 will suffice in a pinch.

        1. TOTALLY INSANE GUNTARD! See his public SELF-HUMILIATION! 🙂

          <blockquote?The bullshit is the argument that the 2A is applicable to only 18th century firearms..Shoulda read the link. Scalia actually RIDICULES YOU.
          AND NOW ME!!! (smirk(

          Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
          Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

          I suppose you think the 1A is applicable only to pamphleteers and news paper editors?

          Scalia ridiculed you on that, too! (sneer)

          And your next babble has been BULLSHIT since 1939!

          A militia member would be expected to acquire a rifle that is equivalent to that in current use by the regular army. He would also be expected to be proficient in its use and have ample accouterments and ammunition, should he be called to service. Fast forward to today and every able bodied person between 17 and 45 ought have an M4 or equivalent in their personal possession because they are the militia. Nevertheless, an AR-15 will suffice in a pinch.

          YOU PULLED EVERY WORD OUT OF YOUR PATHETIC ASS!.

          Heller, page 58
          We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816.

          We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

          Since you BLOWHARDS say “at the time” means Now … THIS goes up your ass too. 🙂 🙂

          ….as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty…..

          ===

          US v Miller the precedent (for lyin’ guntards)

          … from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” <b<And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

          1) “these men” are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by “when called for service” for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

          2) “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … THE TIME PERIOD DOES NOT CHANGE IN MID-SENTENCE . (DUH) …. So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION.
          All the links to the actual rulings are at the link you REFUSED to read , so you could instead … bellow

          Tip. NEVER try to bully/bullshit anyone who knows all the links AND PAGE NUMBERS for each and every word f SCOTUS rulings.
          Or they will PROVE you are a Know-Nothing.

          Will be now make an even bigger foolf f himself???
          Stay tuned/

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still lying that Scalia ruled that only single shot rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

  57. Oh, Golly!

    I think it’s time to repost a snippet of Taney’s Parade of Horribles in the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford, a listing of the rights escaped slaves would have to be given were they to be granted citizenship in any State:

    “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

    Does anyone think Taney & Company would have written those words if they had any sense that the 2nd *didn’t* stand in the way of disarming individuals either at home or “wherever they went”?

    As a white male pan sapiens of a modern libertarian persuasion, I’d like to have the rights that the SCOTUS denied the esteemed Mr. Scott.

  58. Article is wrong: “Well Regulated” has nothing to do with “govt-trained.” It is referring to the weaponry, and being well regulated is being equally-armed and having ALL the instruments necessary to secure a free state: rifles, pistols, cannon, war ship, etc. If you were “well-regulated” today, you would have a Comanche helicopter, a Bradley, an air craft carrier – whatever it took to match a tyrannical govt.

  59. When push comes to shove, I suspect the most vocal gun enthusiasts will acquiesce to new gun control measures. Others will bury, or otherwise hide, their cache of arms and ammunition. Still others will resist, and their resistance will be deemed proof positive of the need for more gun control everywhere. We will see how this plays out in VA where there will be a test soon and very soon. I expect sweeping legislation there on day one of the newly elected legislature.

    1. You do know .. right? .. that an “assault weapons”: ban has been fully constitutional since US v Miler (1939) … and defended by Scalia in Heller.

      1. You do know… right? That even machine guns were not banned by the NFA, and semiautomatic weapons were not covered. And the fictional category of “assault weapons” are semiautomatics that are cosmetically similar to military assault rifles that first came into use in WWII.

        1. Call me a liar … based on your IGNORANCE .. so I KICK YOUR SORRY ASS in self defense.

          THAT’S WHY I USED QUOTES FOR “assault weapons”
          And the law is CALLED and “assault weapons ban” GOOGLE IT! 🙂
          The NRA was POWERLESS against it for TEN LONG YEARS ..BWAAA HAAA HAAA … BECAUSE THE BAN WAS CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE 1939 … FOR WHICH YOU DARE CALL ME A LIAR … IN A COMMENT OVERFLOWING WITH ,..
          SMNARKY IGNORANCE … ON EVERYTHING

          You do know… right? That even machine guns were not banned by the NFA,

          Whyat I do knows is … SHAME ON YOU for deception.
          For civilian possession, all machine guns must have been manufactured and registered with ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens.[18] These machine gun prices have drastically escalated in value, especially items like registered sears and conversion-kits.
          Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder> licensed to manufacture firearms or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) could manufacture machine guns after that date, 
          ***and they can only be sold to government, law-enforcement, and military entities.***

          FOLLOWED BY YOUR NEXT MASSIVE SCREWUP!

          the NFA, and semiautomatic weapons were not covered.

          SUPREME COURT RULINGS ARE SUPERIOR TO LAWS ,.. BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPERIOR TO LAWS!! (SMIRK)

          NOW, you smash a pie into your own puss!.

          military assault rifles that first came into use in WWII.

          *SNEER*… YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME … BUT YOU’RE TOO IGNORANT TO KNOW IT

          2a protects ONLY the modern equivalents of weapons “in common use” at ratification … “brought from home for militia service”
          For rifles, that is the modern equivalent of a musket … a single-shot rifle that some would call a …. HUNTING RIFLE

          REPEAT FOR UNEDUCATED GUNTARDS:

          You do know .. right? .. that an “assault weapons”: ban has been fully constitutional since US v Miler (1939) … and defended by Scalia in Heller

          Brainwashed guntard knows NOTHING on 2A!! And HUMILITED HIMSELF, , with a snarky copY of my own opening 
          … also totally ignorant!

          *** HERE’S UNDENIABLE PROOF OF BOTH RULINGS .. COMPLETE WITH LINKS TO EACH RUlING ,,, AND …
          BWAA HAAA HAAA … PAGE NUMBERS FOR EACH AND EVERY WORD ,.. SO EVEN SCHOOLKIDS CAN EASILY SEE HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE.
          BECAUSE I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU PEOPLE LIE .. WHEN YOU’VE BEEN PROVEN TO BE BRAINWASHED PUPPETS.

          https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/#comment-7995608

          ALSO IGNORANT OF THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN! OMG.

          Guntards are eagerly brainwashed on 2a … just as progtards are so eager to be brainwashed on gummint health care.

          As we libertarians have known for over 50 years.
          Left – Right = Zero
          And a growing majority of Americans (over 60%) now agree.

          Left and Right, now less than 40% COMBINED, are obsolete.

      2. I do know that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” in the sense you, the media and the other leftists use the term. A baseball bat could be an assault weapon. Hands, fists, and feet are also often used as assault weapons. More so, in fact, than any kind of rifle. A black, scary rifle, with a military appearance, does not an assault weapon make. My M1 Garand is a bona fide battle rifle used during WWII to defeat the Nazis and the Empire of Japan. It fires a large, .30 caliber round, but because it has a wooden stock, it is not considered an assault rifle by those who are wholly ignorant of actual firearms. Those who would deny themselves the right of self defense must have their right protected by those of us who know better. The Almighty government is incapable of protecting you from those who would do you harm. That is your responsibility.

        1. Bellowing Blowhard (noun)
          Increasingly common in online forums. Exist on both that left and the right. Mostly beat their chests and bellow, always with great certainty, ON MATTERS THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
          Their FAILURE comes from looking for ONLY what they agree on. NO concern for facts. Tribalism, primitive, As shown by their TRIBAL BIGOTRY .., lumping ALL who don’t share their own brand of ignorance as the opposing tribe … about which they LIE (the bigotry part.)  
          Almost all are cyber-bullies(synonym) Braying Jackass.

          ANOTHER unprovoked assault … ANOTHER brainwashed guntard. And liar. And bigot.

          I do know that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” in the sense you, the media and the other leftists use the term.

          MASSIVE 
          FUCKUP!
          1) Has NO CLUE what I meant. Pulled it our of his ass.2) Now TWO who have no ideas what “quotes” mean.

          3) AND THE CRAZED WACKO CALLS ME A LEFTIST … ALSO OUT OF STUPIDITY AND BIGOTRY

          Bend over, for minimal pain, as I jam this up your pathetic ass … in defene of your MINDLESS assault
          The following links to the INDEX PAGE, for the web archive of my published writing. As you scroll down the categories .. Taxes … Health Care … Education …New Federalism … each and every word PROVES you a FUCKING FUCKUING BIGOT! (sneer)
          Liberty Issues, a how-to-guide to taking back America

          A baseball bat could be an assault weapon.

          THAT’S NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!

          The rest is COWARDLY EVASIONS AND DIVERSIONS.
          ANOTHER BLOWHARD WHO DENIES THE NRA WAS TOTALLY HELPLESS AGAINST THE 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” — what it’s called goober.

          AND TOTAL COWARDLY. EVASION THAT BANS ON “SEMI- AUTOMATIC RIFLES” HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE 1939. THE UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT YOU’RE A BELLOWING BLOWHARD IS LINKED AND DESCRIBED IN MY REPLY TO Pro bonobo.

  60. Nine unelected judges in ought not get to decide for 320 million sovereign citizens the limit of their rights. I can read. The meaning of words “right” and “shall not be infringed” are easily understood.

    1. ONLY right-wing fascists SHIT on our Constitution, BABBLING about unelected judges,. They/you would restore Jim Crow .. the KKK notion that
      1) They/you REFUSE to follow the Constitution.
      2) They/you DENY Checks and Balances between THREE co-equal branches
      3) So they/you REJECT balance of power
      4) They/you also TOO IGNORANT to know those “unelected judges” have CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED POWERS.

      Have you not yet studied … US History?

      i can read.

      But NOT comprehend!!! You CANNOT GRASP THE CONSTITUTION.
      Plus you NEXT ignorance.

      The meaning of words “right” and “shall not be infringed” are easily understood.

      NOT BY YOU! 🙂

      The “right” protects ONLY the modern equivalent of weapons “in common use” at ratification” and “brought from home for militia duty.” Since 1939. For rifles, that means the modern equivalent of the musket … a single-short rifle, which many call a “hunting rifle.”

      That’s per the Heller ruling, by perhaps THE most conservative Justices in 50 years, Antonin Scalia .. which DEFENDED the 1939 precedent, and it’s limits of … not the right … but what it protects.,

      So … will you accept our Constitution or continue as a far-right fascist? Your choice. Key parts of both rulings are linked and described in my reply to pro bonobo
      November.7.2019 at 11:15 am

      Your other massive errors were TOTALLY debunked in my reply to you just above November.7.2019 at 11:56 am

      ESPECIALLY your bat-shit crazy claim that I’m a leftist!
      And a mass of other thing you know NOTHING about, 🙂
      Your type is … scary .. to all our liberties.

      YOU are the UNELECTED judge … with NO delegated powers our authority. Now read the premise of our Declaration of Independence.

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms why he’ll die without a spouse and his kids hate his guts.

        1. He certainly does not play well with others.

          I’ll repeat here the majority opinion from Sanford v. Dred Scott that the unhinged TruthTeller skipped over:
          “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

          They didn’t want Mr. Scott to have the rights the high court understood to be possessed by the white citizenry, including “to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.

          I think I finally understand the Unhinged one… he thinks we’re all to be treated as excaped slaves.

  61. but there’s an interesting video of the British Historical Trust moving the megaliths at Stonehenge back an hour for the end of Daylight
    Ref: https://www.sattaking.info
    satta king

  62. Interesting to see that, so far, 7 references to the 9th amendment have been made. I think that a much stronger argument can be made by including both the 2nd and 9th along with the references made in state constitutions. The 9th is almost invisible to SCOTUS although the most direct use was made in case of Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) which recognized a right to marital privacy.

Please to post comments