The Right to Keep and Bear What?
- Thread starter Laufen
- Start date
Into the ether..............
Well I'm sending you a repeat for my ammo and for the mags you sent. That's 2 transactions. Count it.
Ha. You don't get it. Being that I'm in security work... She slid the panic lock on the basement door. I'm trapped son. It's not terrible. Full refrigerator full of snacks and booze. TV. Nice couch. It could be worse.
Sorry for the derailment of the thread. Carry on BRAINS.
Are you posting from your phone or a Laptop? I have my own room since we have such diffrent sleep schedules. I go to bed later and usually wake up before her.
My phone. My laptop is currently locked in my office(in the basement where I am locked in haha. The keys to my office are upstairs).
My office is a separate room in the basement.
Come on when a an ex president tries to argue what the word IS is not sure how we could ever get a clear definition of Arms, just saying
That doesn't really have anything to do with it, and in no way reflects on anything other than itself. US law is chock full of clearly defined and legally defensible definitions.
No it isnt. I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Maybe in patent law it's cut and dry but in criminal and civil the definitions change constantly. Maybe that's why Black's is on their 9th or 10th edition.
The definitions may change, but in their current state the definition is in itself, clear and legally definable. Even if the definition changes over time, at any given point the definition embodies law. Definitions, should and could change over time, but that would be the point of clarifying the actual words used to create a definition. "arms" are at the core of that argument.
There are 7 definitions for the term "person".
The second is a "corporation". And I've read cases where the human involved was being considered a corporation in context.
How is anybody but somebody trained in this garbage supposed to know what's going on?
Do you know what "property" is? How about "public"?
See the need for a clear, and legally defensible definition?
Also, "person" and "property" as defined are used in all sorts of legal language. In this case, were talking about defining one word, in context of a particular amendment. That's much, much more specific.
Yes...is there a definition that contradicts another, or are they all variations of a theme?
You will never get a clear definition when lawyers are involved.
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.
Well regulated meant well ordered, functioning as intended
Militia referred to everyone male capable of defense against an outside force
Bear meant to carry
Arms meant, at the time, any weapon but could be construed to mean any weapon capable of carrying. Private cannons were used against the British starting April 19, 1775, and the use of private cannon continued throughout the war. Cannons were the most destructive weapon of the time, and their private ownership continued after the constitution. They are still legal to own now, without special permission, as well as ball ammo.
These definitions were accepted until the progressive era, as well as the fact that the second amendment exists to protect against government tyranny. How did lawyers getting involved help anything?
I don't know the history, but when did it become impossible to become an American lawyer by apprenticeship? That's probably the moment where everything really started going downhill. What we need is a pain language amendment to the constitution. A law that cannot be understood by a person of average intelligence, as it's written, should be declared invalid and sent back for revision.
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.
Well regulated meant well ordered, functioning as intended
Militia referred to everyone male capable of defense against an outside force
Bear meant to carry
Arms meant, at the time, any weapon but could be construed to mean any weapon capable of carrying. Private cannons were used against the British starting April 19, 1775, and the use of private cannon continued throughout the war. Cannons were the most destructive weapon of the time, and their private ownership continued after the constitution. They are still legal to own now, without special permission, as well as ball ammo.
These definitions were accepted until the progressive era, as well as the fact that the second amendment exists to protect against government tyranny. How did lawyers getting involved help anything?
I don't know the history, but when did it become impossible to become an American lawyer by apprenticeship? That's probably the moment where everything really started going downhill. What we need is a pain language amendment to the constitution. A law that cannot be understood by a person of average intelligence, as it's written, should be declared invalid and sent back for revision.
Lawyers getting involved made it possible for the SC to make the determination that the Second Amendment applies to individuals (the people), and thus has eliminated several anti-gun laws. Heller vs. DC, and the Chicago gun ban. Their laws still suck, but at least there isn't an all out ban on guns.
Lawyers getting involved is how the definition of "militia" was changed to begin with. How long between the constitution and the case where militia was redefined to mean something analogous to the national guard? Then how many decades after that till the supreme court upheld an individual right? And even then it's not nearly as strong as it was before. Just because we have lawyers on our side doesn't mean anything. Every argument you make strengthens mine.
@rOmiLaYu time for the amazing Spider-Man