They make *what* for kids!?

[Thoricia]

"A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."[151] Presser

Thank you.

In other words, it supports my claim that the court has consistently argued against the individual right theory of the meaning behind the Second Amendment.

I guess I just read it differently then you *shrugs*

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Also, from the Presser v Illinois decision: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

[Lunatic Goofballs]

"A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."[151] Presser

Thank you.

In other words, it supports my claim that the court has consistently argued against the individual right theory of the meaning behind the Second Amendment.

Evel Knievel couldn't make that leap. It means that the state can't make it so prohibitive to keep and bear arms that it interferes with the federal imperative that as many people be trained in their use as possible.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not at my computer.

Because what you described is collective right theory. Are you aware of what it even is?

Yes. According to your link, it holds that the right to bear arms is dependent on militia membership. That's not what United States v. Miller ruled. Not that it would matter because the militia consists of all able-bodied men between 17 and 45(65 in the case of veterans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... _States%29

But the United States v. Miller doesn't support that opinion. In fact, it specifies: "The significance 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. 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."

Thus they state that people are expected to own guns of a kind in common use at the time.

...What? That makes absolutely no sense. You have to understand that in Miller, they were using the definition of what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written. They then stated that as long as a regulation doesn't hinder the existence and efficiency of a militia, it's constitutional.

In other words, collective rights theory.

[Mavorpen]

Thank you.

In other words, it supports my claim that the court has consistently argued against the individual right theory of the meaning behind the Second Amendment.

Evel Knievel couldn't make that leap. It means that the state can't make it so prohibitive to keep and bear arms that it interferes with the federal imperative that as many people be trained in their use as possible.

Which again, is collective rights theory.

This isn't difficult.

[Mavorpen]

Also, from the Presser v Illinois decision: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Which is...say it with me... collective rights theory.

[Thoricia]

Yes. According to your link, it holds that the right to bear arms is dependent on militia membership. That's not what United States v. Miller ruled. Not that it would matter because the militia consists of all able-bodied men between 17 and 45(65 in the case of veterans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... _States%29

But the United States v. Miller doesn't support that opinion. In fact, it specifies: "The significance 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. 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."

Thus they state that people are expected to own guns of a kind in common use at the time.

...What? That makes absolutely no sense. You have to understand that in Miller, they were using the definition of what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written. They then stated that as long as a regulation doesn't hinder the existence and efficiency of a militia, it's constitutional.

In other words, collective rights theory.

How does regulating firearms not hinder the existence an efficiency of a militia? Especially if you're using what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written.

[Mavorpen]

How does regulating firearms not hinder the existence an efficiency of a militia? Especially if you're using what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written.

That's surprisingly easy to answer.

Switzerland.

[Big Jim P]

Also, from the Presser v Illinois decision: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Which is...say it with me... collective rights theory.

No matter ow many times you repeat that, it will not change the fact that it is now an individual right. As it should be.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Yes. According to your link, it holds that the right to bear arms is dependent on militia membership. That's not what United States v. Miller ruled. Not that it would matter because the militia consists of all able-bodied men between 17 and 45(65 in the case of veterans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... _States%29

But the United States v. Miller doesn't support that opinion. In fact, it specifies: "The significance 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. 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."

Thus they state that people are expected to own guns of a kind in common use at the time.

...What? That makes absolutely no sense. You have to understand that in Miller, they were using the definition of what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written. They then stated that as long as a regulation doesn't hinder the existence and efficiency of a militia, it's constitutional.

In other words, collective rights theory.

Wow, you are contorting like crazy to make this work! If you were saltier, I might mistake you for a pretzel.

WE ARE the MILITIA. People have a right to keep and bear arms so that we are trained in their use should the need ever arise for us to be organized. We don't have to be organized to keep and bear arms. We have that right JUST IN CASE.

[Thoricia]

How does regulating firearms not hinder the existence an efficiency of a militia? Especially if you're using what "militia" was when the Second Amendment was written.

That's surprisingly easy to answer.

Switzerland.

I didn't realize we were arguing guns for everyone, then yes I agree with you guns for everyone.

[YellowApple]

Evel Knievel couldn't make that leap. It means that the state can't make it so prohibitive to keep and bear arms that it interferes with the federal imperative that as many people be trained in their use as possible.

Which again, is collective rights theory.

This isn't difficult.

You both are implying that collective and individual rights must be mutually exclusive, a position which I would argue is incorrect. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms, how is the collective right to keep and bear arms supposed to exist in the ways specified by the legal cases you all have been discussing? Likewise, without the collective benefit, why would the individual right need to exist?

[Mavorpen]

Which is...say it with me... collective rights theory.

No matter ow many times you repeat that, it will not change the fact that it is now an individual right. As it should be.

What a completely useless observation that doesn't advance the debate along whatsoever. Seriously, as much fun as it is watching some of you flail around and masturbate over the Heller case as though it's gospel, you need to understand a crucial fact. No one, absolutely no one, is claiming that the Supreme Court didn't interpret the Amendment to apply to privately owning guns. Absolutely no one. We are debating whether that interpretation is correct. It doesn't help at all bragging, "YEAH, WELL WE WON IN 2008, SO SUCK IT!"

When you want to actually have a mature discussion, I'll be here.

[Mavorpen]

Wow, you are contorting like crazy to make this work! If you were saltier, I might mistake you for a pretzel.

WE ARE the MILITIA. People have a right to keep and bear arms so that we are trained in their use should the need ever arise for us to be organized. We don't have to be organized to keep and bear arms. We have that right JUST IN CASE.

Which is collective rights theory.

I'm not sure why you're making this unnecessarily complicated.

[Mavorpen]

Which again, is collective rights theory.

This isn't difficult.

You both are implying that collective and individual rights must be mutually exclusive, a position which I would argue is incorrect. Without the individual right to keep and bear arms, how is the collective right to keep and bear arms supposed to exist in the ways specified by the legal cases you all have been discussing? Likewise, without the collective benefit, why would the individual right need to exist?

No. I'm not saying it's a matter of "individual right" vs "collective right." I'm saying it's a matter of individual rights theory versus collective rights theory in the context of the Second Amendment.

[Mavorpen]

That's surprisingly easy to answer.

Switzerland.

I didn't realize we were arguing guns for everyone, then yes I agree with you guns for everyone.

I agree. Why should a militia need to keep ammunition in the home? Also, more restrictive private sales of guns is a plus.

[Big Jim P]

No matter ow many times you repeat that, it will not change the fact that it is now an individual right. As it should be.

What a completely useless observation that doesn't advance the debate along whatsoever. Seriously, as much fun as it is watching some of you flail around and masturbate over the Heller case as though it's gospel, you need to understand a crucial fact. No one, absolutely no one, is claiming that the Supreme Court didn't interpret the Amendment to apply to privately owning guns. Absolutely no one. We are debating whether that interpretation is correct. It doesn't help at all bragging, "YEAH, WELL WE WON IN 2008, SO SUCK IT!"

When you want to actually have a mature discussion, I'll be here.

The interpretation is right. An individual has the right to own and bear arms. Plain reading comprehension shows that.

Next thing you know, someone will be saying that the individual does not have the right to self defense.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Evel Knievel couldn't make that leap. It means that the state can't make it so prohibitive to keep and bear arms that it interferes with the federal imperative that as many people be trained in their use as possible.

Which again, is collective rights theory.

This isn't difficult.

No. It isn't. The people own the guns, not the militia. Or are you trying to argue that only men can own guns, and only if they are under 45? You don't have to be a member of the milita to own a gun. But the reason we have the right to own guns is because the militia needs to be trained.

[Big Jim P]

Wow, you are contorting like crazy to make this work! If you were saltier, I might mistake you for a pretzel.

WE ARE the MILITIA. People have a right to keep and bear arms so that we are trained in their use should the need ever arise for us to be organized. We don't have to be organized to keep and bear arms. We have that right JUST IN CASE.

Which is collective rights theory.

I'm not sure why you're making this unnecessarily complicated.

The "collective' you keep referring to is composed of individuals, each of whom has the personal right to bear arms.

[Mavorpen]

The interpretation is right. An individual has the right to own and bear arms. Plain reading comprehension shows that.

I'm so glad you haven't read a single thing I've posted.

Next thing you know, someone will be saying that the individual does not have the right to self defense.

Leave Charlie alone.

[Mavorpen]

Which again, is collective rights theory.

This isn't difficult.

No. It isn't. The people own the guns, not the militia. Or are you trying to argue that only men can own guns, and only if they are under 45? You don't have to be a member of the milita to own a gun. But the reason we have the right to own guns is because the militia needs to be trained.

I get the feeling you have no clue what I'm even talking about.

[Big Jim P]

The interpretation is right. An individual has the right to own and bear arms. Plain reading comprehension shows that.

I'm so glad you haven't read a single thing I've posted.

Next thing you know, someone will be saying that the individual does not have the right to self defense.

Leave Charlie alone.

I have read what you have posted. I happen to disagree with your stance that the right to bear arms is a collective right.

Edit: And "leave Charlie alone"? I do not get the reference.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I didn't realize we were arguing guns for everyone, then yes I agree with you guns for everyone.

I agree. Why should a militia need to keep ammunition in the home? Also, more restrictive private sales of guns is a plus.

Because most of the militia is at home. SO are their families, all of which have also have the right to keep and bear arms. The PEOPLE have that right, not the milita.

[Mavorpen]

Which is collective rights theory.

I'm not sure why you're making this unnecessarily complicated.

The "collective' you keep referring to is composed of individuals, each of whom has the personal right to bear arms.

...Guys. Use Google. When you see a phrase like, "collective rights theory," that you clearly don't understand, you should search for it. For fucks sake, you're on the internet. Use it.

[Mavorpen]

I'm so glad you haven't read a single thing I've posted.

Leave Charlie alone.

I have read what you have posted. I happen to disagree with your stance that the right to bear arms is a collective right.

You generally have to understand a stance before you disagree.