General Discussion

NoGOPZone

(2,971 posts)

105. Best method of answering your question

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:35 PM

Apr 2013

is to read the first few pages of Stevens dissent

Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia

***********************

The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you: [View all] Playinghardball Apr 2013 OP

Point ? nt clarice Apr 2013 #1

Do You Have One? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #17

One what ? nt clarice Apr 2013 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Apr 2013 #24

Dense? Zoeisright Apr 2013 #69

No, this is Clarice. nt clarice Apr 2013 #126

No. Fortunately the 2A protects an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #2

heller only gives you the right to a handgun INSIDE the home. in the heller decision scalia said leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #3

Never said it did. It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a militia. hack89 Apr 2013 #4

the 1st part of it does, the 2a doesnt start with '...' it's provisional based on a well-regulated leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #7

Heller says otherwise. Go take it up with the Supreme Court. hack89 Apr 2013 #8

"Go take it up with five right-wing, GOP-appointed members of the Supreme Court." <--There; apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #15

That was very kind of you. Thanks. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #18

The President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #22

Now the desperate attempt to change the subject. Typical & Textbook. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #25

So the President is supporting a RW view of the 2A? hack89 Apr 2013 #28

Changing the subject is not gonna work: once we get five liberals on USSC, *Heller* is overturned. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #31

Ok Nostradamus hack89 Apr 2013 #38

Wait, not "see": being on the right side of history means my fellow progressives and I will have to apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #43

Shouldn't you change the Democratic party platform first? hack89 Apr 2013 #44

It's going to be great day when we have five progressives on the high court, and *Heller* is apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #47

When pigs fly. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #77

Weren't there also people who predicted ROE V. WADE was going to get overturned? derby378 Apr 2013 #88

Agreed. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #92

Oh, it's going to be overturned alright - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #96

Suuuuuure it is. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #98

Yep - it is. By jove, you're catching on. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #100

I love how cocksure you guys are about that. Bake Apr 2013 #110

^^^Check this out folks^^^ "you guys" = Liberals and Progressives, Democrats in general. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #113

No, "you guys" as in gun grabbers. Bake Apr 2013 #128

No, "you guys" is exactly as I stated it above - I've seen your posts on the matter endless times apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #129

And you, please, point to where I referred to "you guys" as all liberals/Democrats. Bake Apr 2013 #130

And now juvenile name-calling and personal attacks, as the truth proves embarrassing. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #132

But you still can't point to any post of mine where I defended the NRA or assault rifles Bake Apr 2013 #133

Whatever you say. Facts say otherwise, however, and you're really not fooling about *anyone*. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #134

Then show the facts. Bake Apr 2013 #135

Asked & answered. *Repeatedly*. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #136

You have proven nothing except that you are a liar. Bake Apr 2013 #137

Well, until the makeup of the Court changes, what it says is the LAW. Bake Apr 2013 #91

Well, so what? So were Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. One more progressive justice and Heller apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #99

And who exactly is going to appoint a progressive Justice? Bake Apr 2013 #108

If you don't consider Justice's Sotomayor and Kagan progressives, then I can't help you. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #112

No, it doesn't. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #33

linquistically? wow that's some clutching at straws- it's as if all those words before the leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #45

That's about all the "RKBA enthusiast" side has got: twisting of consitutional history and language, apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #50

what do they think all those letters in front of 'the right of the people ........" mean? leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #57

They try desperately to explain "well regulated militia" away, because it puts paid to the bogus apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #104

Wow. I didn't know the National Guard existed when they wrote the 2nd Amendment ... Bake Apr 2013 #109

It didn't. But it does now, and is, by law enacted by the people, the new well-regulated militia. jmg257 Apr 2013 #125

you think that's funny read the twisting going on in reply 74 leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #118

If that were my actual opinion and not your strawman, you might have a point. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #74

if they wanted everyone to have guns the 1st part of the amendment wouldnt be there. leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #117

Exactly right - it states PRE-CONDITIONS for exercise of the "right," i.e., belonging to a National apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #35

Constitutional definition of militia: bighart Apr 2013 #72

Constitutional definition of militia: National Guard these days. jmg257 Apr 2013 #76

Per the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University: bighart Apr 2013 #78

Thanks. As I said, only one of those is organized per federal regulations: AKA Well-regulated. jmg257 Apr 2013 #79

LOL. You got it exactly backwards. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #75

Nope, got it exactly correct, all that meaningless verbiage in your reply notwithstanding. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #101

Of course that verbiage was "meaningless" to you. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #103

No, it was meaningless because it was meaningless. And continues to be. But nice try. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #116

QED Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #120

Heller doesn't give anyone any rights slackmaster Apr 2013 #62

again - heller only allows you to have a handgun in the home - and again scalia said this doesnt leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #39

What does that have to do with the OP? hack89 Apr 2013 #40

maybe i misunderstood youwhen you said "It did not, however, link gun ownership to membership in a leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #51

I was referring to Heller. Not a problem. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #53

What they hang their hat on is five right-wing, GOP-appointed USSC justices. Once we get five apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #5

Just like the Scalia court quickly overturned Roe v Wade ... oh wait a second. hack89 Apr 2013 #6

Correct me if I'm in error, premium Apr 2013 #10

Yes, they all agreed that it protects an individual and not a collective right petronius Apr 2013 #67

Thank you. premium Apr 2013 #73

HELLER is here to stay, and the gun-grabbers better get used to it derby378 Apr 2013 #89

With the caveat that I am neither an attorney nor a Constitutional scholar, I don't petronius Apr 2013 #90

Nope. It was made expressly clear by the progressive justices that they would overturn Heller if apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #97

Best method of answering your question NoGOPZone Apr 2013 #105

You are in error. Here's the controlling text of the dissent: apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #115

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #12

Time will tell. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #14

Yep - and as the country is turning "Blue" quite steadily, time is on the side of genuine apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #19

Since the President and the party platform say the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #21

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #26

Keep believing that. hack89 Apr 2013 #29

It's not a matter of "belief," it's a matter of FACTS. So, yeah: that day is coming. Heller will be apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #30

Predicting the future is never FACTS. It is an opinion. hack89 Apr 2013 #36

You go right ahead and "bookmark" it. Five progressive justices = *Heller* overturned. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #37

Yes, it's turning blue pintobean Apr 2013 #41

Good one. premium Apr 2013 #49

See what 30 yrs of corporate-funded RW propaganda pushing for fascism can do? baldguy Apr 2013 #55

National guards were created in the late 1800s. former9thward Apr 2013 #11

Ah, semantics games. Typical. National Guard 2013 = "Militia" 1792. But nice try. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #13

The 1792 Militia and the 2013 not even remotely the same. former9thward Apr 2013 #64

Yes, but we, the people have decided they prefer a select militia, AKA the National Guard. jmg257 Apr 2013 #80

I am glad you speak for "we, the people" former9thward Apr 2013 #123

I don't claim to speak for the people, I wasn't even alive when those laws were written. jmg257 Apr 2013 #124

Nope. The 2nd amendment was a collective right given to the states AFTER the Constitution was apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #102

You love making stuff up. former9thward Apr 2013 #107

Nope, wrong on all counts. But now that you have been schooled on when the Federalist papers were apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #111

Take it up with James Madison not me. former9thward Apr 2013 #122

Speaking of "making stuff up," here's the *ACTUAL* dissent in Heller by the progressive justices: apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #114

Again I have to school you. former9thward Apr 2013 #121

Have to disagree here. The states already had the power, the duty to maintain militias. jmg257 Apr 2013 #127

Whatever they and you have done does not trump the natural right to self-defense. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #9

No they don't, but I'm still keeping my firearms. Throd Apr 2013 #16

The President and our party platform says the 2A supports an individual right hack89 Apr 2013 #23

Nope. el_bryanto Apr 2013 #27

The 2nd amendment is bullshit. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #32

It's been twisted by five right-wing, GOP-appointed justices to mean something it doesn't; apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #34

Majority of Americans believe its an invidual right...so does the president and the Democratic party davidn3600 Apr 2013 #42

Five progressive/liberal justices = buh-bye, *Heller* mis-ruling. Better get used to it. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #46

Guns are going nowhere...get used to it. davidn3600 Apr 2013 #48

As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is irrelevant. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #52

Bans, confiscation...whatever. Guns are going nowhere. davidn3600 Apr 2013 #54

As no one has said anything about "confiscating guns" save you, your reply is *again* irrelevant. nt apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #94

Then what does it matter if Heller is overturned or not? sandmann Apr 2013 #59

Oh, it's going to be overturned alrighty - soon as we get a fifth progressive justice. n/t. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #95

I'm just trying to follow the logic sandmann Apr 2013 #119

You knew these men personally? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #58

Read their writings...it's right there! davidn3600 Apr 2013 #66

Everyone Has An Opinion HangOnKids Apr 2013 #70

Constitutionally, the states have no more power to disarm the people then the feds do. jmg257 Apr 2013 #65

...and anyone with an adequate understanding of the English language. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #84

Maybe, but until it's repealed it is the law of the land. slackmaster Apr 2013 #61

As opposed to these One_Life_To_Give Apr 2013 #56

I see two probable schizophrenics and one possible personality disorder. slackmaster Apr 2013 #60

They look like three reason we should have more mental institutions - lynne Apr 2013 #63

Exactly. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #68

OP should consider that constant posting of psycho pictures may encourage others. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #71

Poor sentence structure El HangOnKids Apr 2013 #81

A mountain of irony, and you can't find a magnet? pop-fizz... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #82

Gibberish HangOnKids Apr 2013 #83

You know what to do. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #85

Sorry No HangOnKids Apr 2013 #86

Yep - our "pro gun progressives"* can't come out and OPENLY state their true beliefs on DU apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #93

There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment... krispos42 Apr 2013 #87

No, did any one say that they did? aikoaiko Apr 2013 #106

Nope. They aren't militia at ALL. Tender to the Bone Apr 2013 #131