Vermont lawmakers pass firearms control bill

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not quite. District of Columbia v. Heller.

"The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right — unconnected to service in the militia — to possess certain weapons for self-defense."

"The Court first determined that “the right of the people” refers to individuals, not to the militia;"

harvardlawreview.org...

Thank you for citation.

That is the intrepretation - but is not what was originally written.

If you are a 'strict constructionist', as most conservatives claim, then the modern reading is meaningless.

I love how ATS so call conservatives are literal with the Constitution as long as it serves their delusions.

a reply to: FyreByrd

What a shame you aren't interpreting it as it was written then, eh?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: FyreByrd

What a shame you aren't interpreting it as it was written then, eh?

Not any interpretation whatsoever, just the literal written word:

AMENDMENT II

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

www.constituteproject.org...

Funny thing..........

On unenumerated rights.

Some will ignore states rights and worse yet the right of the people and make outlandish claims of "federal" rights when it suits an agenda. Forget what the document says.

Come the 2nd and now it's of course "states rights"when states abridge an "enumerated" right.

Hypocrite there?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Commas are used to separate items or clauses in a series. Commas denote a separation of subject or items.

You are reading the second amendment as if it had no commas. I can understand your mistake but its leading you to an entirely corrupt conclusion which has absolutely no basis in fact or interpretation.

Our founders considered even punctuation as it had and has meaning.

Your ignoring that and it's just wrong.

Are you denying that the commas exist, founders did not know written English or that some modern version of those majically changed the meaning of second amendment to fit those with ideas of tyranny.

Sounds like that to me.

a reply to: FyreByrd

What was the militia in 1791? It was, wait for it... Every able bodied man, woman, and child capable of holding a weapon.

It was your neighbor. It was your grocer. The blacksmith. etc... Everybody.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people. That's you, your neighbor, the grocer, and the blacksmith. That's also the militia. They would meet periodically in the Town Commons, or square, where ever room enough was to be had to train. Just as today, I gather with friends at a range and shoot. That's the militia. It's our right to keep and bear arms as necessary for a free and secure state. I make no grandiose claims of protecting the nation...just my little portion of it, my home, my family, my neighbors should they need it at some point.

Shall not be infringed. Kinda self explanatory, isn't it?

Militia = Neighbors, and community. Nothing more, nothing less.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: FyreByrd

Commas are used to separate items or clauses in a series. Commas denote a separation of subject or items.

You are reading the second amendment as if it had no commas. I can understand your mistake but its leading you to an entirely corrupt conclusion which has absolutely no basis in fact or interpretation.

Our founders considered even punctuation as it had and has meaning.

Your ignoring that and it's just wrong.

Are you denying that the commas exist, founders did not know written English or that some modern version of those majically changed the meaning of second amendment to fit those with ideas of tyranny.

Sounds like that to me.

You are stretching without basis.

all these people demanding age restrictions make no sense, i mean whats the point when most shootings actually happen in universities, i mean there's less than a handful of homicidal school shootings every year, yet hundreds of school killings without a gun being involved happen every year also, where is the outcry to end that violence? i think guns are the last thing we should be focusing on.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CB328

Any other activity "teenagers" should be banned from?
Move the age to drive to 21?


It is all subjective right?

Save more lives by doing that.....but it's not really about saving lives now is it?

a reply to: FyreByrd

So by saying I'm stretching most would agree that you make same claim of SCOTUS ruling which has it basis on proper English, punctuation and therefor meaning.

You are also infering SCOTUS had no basis in fact in DC v Heller.

All that says to me is you are on losing end of an opinion - you know what they say about opinions........they make an.......out of you!

Prime example presented.

a reply to: CB328

This Law is Unconstitutional , but like the Rest of the So Called " Law Makers " in this Country Today , Nobody Gives a Flyin' Fook About it Except the People Who Still Believe in the Rule of Law . Sooner or Later these Elected Law Breakers will Pay the Devil his Due for their Misguided Political Ideology .

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not quite. District of Columbia v. Heller.

"The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right — unconnected to service in the militia — to possess certain weapons for self-defense."

"The Court first determined that “the right of the people” refers to individuals, not to the militia;"

harvardlawreview.org...

Thank you for citation.

That is the intrepretation - but is not what was originally written.

If you are a 'strict constructionist', as most conservatives claim, then the modern reading is meaningless.

I love how ATS so call conservatives are literal with the Constitution as long as it serves their delusions.

Must suck to have the SCOTUS disagree with your "interpretation".

It's the Right of the People, not the Militia.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

One of the things I'd like to see done is a requirement that any new law whether state or federal level must pass constitutional muster prior to enactment. Further any that are enacted if later found unconstutional should open politicians to liability for civil rights violations and/or monetary damages personally.

I am tired of seeing citizens rights abridged for decade or more and mega bucks spent on fighting for what was freely theirs in the first place.

Something of this magnitude surely would rid ourselves of the charlatans known as politicians who fling #$_& at our Constitution to see whatll stick.

Interesting that you gun loving folk consider yourselves law abiding citizens, well right up to the point where someone suggests a change to gun laws. I guess it's all subjective.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Has it occurred to your infinite wisdom that some of us law abiding gun owners don't want the Constitutional process ignored by Congress, and those oh so wise anti-gun types?

You want to change a fundamental part of the Constitution? Do it the right way. Amend it. Bring it before a Constitutional convention that requires a vote of the citizens of each state by majority to amend.

But you lot don't want to do that, because you know precisely how it'll end. You'll lose. So instead, you step before a judge, preferably a tame one who agrees with you, so that he/she can ignore the process and legislate from the bench.

Now who's breaking the law, again??? Do tell.

a reply to: seagull

Look I realize it's upsetting for you but to deny it it delusional, many times I have read on these boards from people like yourself Statements along the lines of " you can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands " and or "come for my guns it will be the last thing you do"

Regardless of what you consider to be my infinite wisdom, that's the cold hard truth of it, many of you claim on one hand to be law abiding citizens while claiming to use those guns against the authorities if need be and that is an underhanded threat. Let's face it, with the way speech is being weaponised , a day may come when those words will be used against you.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes. It is an interpretation. By the court. Who state the words as written in their original syntax, say what they appear to say. That is not a conservative, liberal, or whatever position.

People means a person. An individual. With inherent rights.

Sure. A whole bunch of people all with the same right can be seen as a segment of society. However, the whole is constructed of its parts. The whole does not change any fundamental aspects of its parts in this case.

I see the 2nd as I would the 1st Amendment.

And anyone who's for limited rights on one, is more than likely for limited rights on the other.


So cheer on you censors, you book-burners! Cheer for the loss of rights and freedoms of others.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: FyreByrd

So by saying I'm stretching most would agree that you make same claim of SCOTUS ruling which has it basis on proper English, punctuation and therefor meaning.

You are also infering SCOTUS had no basis in fact in DC v Heller.

All that says to me is you are on losing end of an opinion - you know what they say about opinions........they make an.......out of you!

Prime example presented.

I am not agreeing with you in part or whole.

Regardless of the punctuation, the amendment references THE PEOPLE.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

READ the Constitution CLOSELY ....It Starts With..........


" We the People of the United States ", in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "



The American People are Empowered with this Document , they have a RIGHT to Defend it Against All Enemies of the People both Foreign and Domestic . Simple as that .........