General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt is time the 2nd amendment be enforced as it is written
which means,and the supreme court has said that only a well regulated militia can own a gun.
If you are not that then you have no right and all guns held by those not in an organized militia should be deemed illegal to posses.
Sales of ammunition should be reported to the IRS and taxed heavily.
It is time to stop this madness.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Or maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you saying the SCOTUS should say that?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[114] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[115] Regarding a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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.[47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It does not mean every random person is entitled to own a gun.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)The SCOTUS affirmed that very thing, i.e., the right of individuals to bear arms, with no requirement that they need be in a militia.
You may not like the ruling, but it is what it is.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)You don`t get that walking down the street to a gun shop.
I have no doubt they never considered the madness we have today back then but their words ring true,unless you have been subjected to proper discipline and training which is not a don`t shoot yourself safety course but one on the discipline of killing in combat (militia) you have no right to ownership.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Not sure where you're getting all of this from, but it certainly isn't from the Heller decision.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)the Supreme Court has said no such thing as "that only a well regulated militia can own a gun".
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)yes it has.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)"The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia".
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)it requires "proper discipline and training",meaning that not every joe sixpack is entitled to own a gun.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)of a "well regulated militia".
Reason for the cite is that many on the anti-2nd amendment side were under the mistaken belief that
"well regulated" meant legislation ("regulation), could be enacted that would limit what type of firearms could be owned, by whom and under what conditions.
The justices were merely correcting their factual error.
(Bold text is mine)...
(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. Pp. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 222.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved. Pp. 2228.
(c) The Courts interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 2830.
(d) The Second Amendments drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 3032.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Courts conclusion. Pp. 3247.
(f) None of the Courts precedents forecloses the Courts interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. 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 to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 4754.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Normally taxes on merchandise is collected on the spot. If you want to collect tax on orders online pass a law and collect taxes on all internet sales.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)about what the SCOTUS has ruled- not said, ruled.
and what you long for is like wishing for a unicorn that poops rainbows- ain't gonna happen.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)"proper discipline and training" were required,not a walk in and give me one of those things in a gun shop.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The first five or ten times it is understandable error, but you have been corrected many times in this thread and seem uninterested in the nature of your error.
What you are seizing on is something the court said about historical commentary on the 2nd amendment that the court went on to say is not controlling
soccer1
(343 posts)2nd amendment guarantees that the individual has the right to bear arms. The SC left lots of room for the states to regulate gun ownership.....Congress can regulate, as well. Of course, state and fed laws will be challenged in the
courts for years to come.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)that any lunatic should own one.
If you want to drive a car you have to pass a written test then a road test,then every few years affirm again your vision is adequate.
The car itself has to be safety inspected yearly and registered to you and liability insurance purchased.
Tell the family of one the dead in Colorado....sorry for what happened but he did legally purchase several guns,including an assault weapon plus hundreds of rounds of ammo.
Just sucks you were there at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Edited after a deep breath,sorry to any offended,I just hate what is going on in this country with all the viciousness the RW is spewing every day and the fact that people can without much hindrance lash out.
The bastards want to make it harder to vote then to own a gun and that is just despicable.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And I defend your right to that opinion. Where you've gone wrong on this thread is not in forcefully stating your opinion, but rather in claiming as fact things that simply are not true, such as saying that SCOTUS said that only militia members can have firearms.
soccer1
(343 posts)but as sad and as frustrating as it is, we can't prevent all crimes committed by lunatics. We can legislate gun control from here to eternity but some crackpot will always find a way to murder people. BUT, sensible control legislation can lessen the chances of these horrific murders and all gun murders (and suicides) being committed.
I think your response is appropriate.....healthy people feel outrage...they are sickened...they are angry and frustrated. I know I feel that way. I don't know where you live, but if you want to try to see some changes in your state's gun control laws start contacting your state legislators.....find groups that address your state's gun issues....sign petitions. I do that and it helps me to gain perspective.....I take positive action, I vote for people who are in favor of sensible gun control.