Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

If you don't mind getting sued by the neighbors for collateral damage. Pete forbid you should kill a neighbor. CCW licensees are trained that if you shoot a bad guy and the bullet goes through them and kills someone behind them you *are* criminally liable under manslaughter statutes.

 

Actually, no.

Taxes are meant to inhibit the exercise of a right - e.g. a poll tax. If a poll tax is unConstutional then a tax to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights is unConstitutional.

I have a problem with the firearm purchase process. The fact that the FFL is required to basically register you gun I consider to be an offense against my privacy rights. The criminal check I don't have a problem with!

 

Well let's think about it. There are around 10k homicides by gun each year in the US. That number includes justified homicides (defense of self, others, property in states like Texas, other's property in states like Texas, and police shoots ruled acceptable).

So really a bit less than 10k. Lets keep 10k though its a nice round number for figuring.
There are around 300million firearms known of (legal) in about 100 million hands. (these numbers like the 10k are approximates not using the actual fiddly bits number. Rounded figures from the actual numbers. k?)
So 10k/300m= 0.0000333333% (repeats) and would actually double or triple etc count any firearm used for more than one homicide.
So a bit less than that number.
Or
10k/100m= 0.0001% of legal owners who kill not justified. To that you can take into account that some of these homicides are going to be manslaughters, IE imperfect self defense. Where someone had a belief of danger but it ultimately wasn't reasonable so they aren't protected. In other words no even all of that tiny tiny fraction of 1 percent of legal owners is twirling their mustache snidely whiplash style, some of them are just dumb or scared and overreacted. But like the double counts above, let's just consider that and still use the number.
So 1 ten thousandth of 1 percent of legal gun owners kill not justified.
To that we can add that NFA items are 1) prohibitively expensive because of an artificially (and unconstitutionally) limited supply 2) in short actual supply which dwindles daily as things break with use or age and can't be fixed without violating the law because they require some new part.
The sorts of persons who have that kind of money and connections, don't make up a very large portion of the 100m, much less of the 1 ten thousandth of 1 percent of 100m.
Odds, basically, is the TLDR answer.

 

Anecdotal evidence and propaganda. But all this is a moot point as since the problematic post I have come to understand that it is not illegal.

 

Good of you to admit as much. Not sure why you'd think it would be.

 

There is a lot of ignorance and misinformation out there on the subject of firearms and the 2A. I like to cut through the BS and get to the facts.

 

2nd Amendment was created so that we would have an armed population that could quickly form a militia during time of crisis, invasion, revolt, or govt. tyranny.

 

correct but not complete, it was a blanket prohibition on a federal government (that was never delegated any power in this area) interfering in an area it was never delegated any power to act in in the first place

 

On this matter, we are in agreement.

 

I know it seems like trolling, but it's really just a form of delusion fueled by narcissism. Trolls are at least somewhat self-aware, whereas the sort of person who would vehemently argue that the second amendment of the bill of rights doesn't codify an individualized, privatized right to keep and bear arms has no idea how utterly asinine and ignorant they sound.

 

So the way that Madison wrote it means something?

 

The form of a sentence means something, yes. You look at what was ratified, and exam its content and structure using the rules of the language. You know..... reading?

 

And what happens when the reading of the Amendment places it in direct conflict with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution?

That is the question which challenges the entire legitimacy of the “militia right only” crowd’s opinion. It is a question they avoid because it is one they cannot answer.

 

And what do you perceive to be in conflict?


The 2a is a right which is recognized to exist in the people individually. The militia is not ALL the people, its the able bodied. But ALL the people have the 2a right to keep and bear arms.

Methinks, and this is before you've spoken so don't take it as a final call just what I'm perceiving here, that this alleged conflict only exists because you're not grasping the concepts involved.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nterpretation-of-the-2nd-amendment-is.509623/

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

 

And what was ratified?

 

Ah. So you're trying to use a dissent as law? there's a problem.

Then there's the fact that militias start at the state level.

Congress has the power to federalize the militias to repel an invasion. In that capacity it may set a common minimum standard. That in no way translates to an ability to infringe the right to keep and bear arms of the people at large by minimizing what they may own or bear.


You want a correct interpretation? Don't read Stevens on gun rights, his emotions cloud his logic there.

 

Dude, we're saying the same thing.

 

In a nutshell, if the Amendment is limited to a “right of the people” to have access to militia arms and only while enrolled and engaged in active militia service, then the Amendment is read in conflict with Congress’ power over the militias in Article I section 8. Congress controls the organization of the militia, and who can and cannot be members (outside the exception granted to the states to name the officers). Congress sets the size of the militia, and can make it as large or as small as it wishes. Congress controls the training and discipline of the militia—when and how its members can use their arms. Congress controls the arming of the militia—what, if any, arms the militia member may have and use. The Article VI supremacy clause makes this power absolute.

There is no “right of the people” to keep and bear arms in a militia. And those who seek to limit the fundamental individual RKBA to active militia service destroy this “right of the people.” They seek to use the militia preamble to choke the substantive right in the amendment. The surest proof that this limited interpretation is fraudulent is this: They cannot tell you how their limited theory works (because they realize it cannot).

This I agree with. I don’t think you fully understand my position. I think if you will read what I have said earlier you will find this to be the case.

But I have spoken—at length. I apologize for not giving you an invitation to that party. Here are a few examples…

Please consider this and then come back and tell me where you believe I am wrong:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-most-significant-flaw-in-the-militia-only-interpretation-of-the-2nd-amendment-is.509623/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1067739033/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1067773427/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1067744623/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1067859694/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1067859703/

And a 4 post string that started here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1068135924/

 

Let me stop you right there. The right of the people is not dependent on service in the militia. Full stop.
Fixed it for you.

 

That's what he, and I, are saying. How are you missing this?

 

He's saying no one can explain it. I'm saying that's because it's from an emotional dissent written by a person whose judgement on the issue is clouded.

 

Are you claiming that BryanVA has clouded judgment on the Second Amendment? Do you realize that he's a pro-2A lawyer, and that the militia post destroys any claim by the anti's that the 2A protects the RKBA for only the militia?

 

He's quoting Stevens. Stevens would be the one with clouded judgement. The argument that rkba has anything to do with the service in a militia is his idea. The reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not a correct interpretation.