gun owners

[Th'Pusher]

Even the court offers an opinion. Are you that ing stupid?

and they're stated as such. You have a problem with stating your opinion as if it were fact. It's not.

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

You asked for my opinion. In order to give it you have to interpret the 2A. That's how I interpret it. Most states agree with me since very few have laws against open carry.

unfortunately for you, the opinion I cited actually matters as it establishes precedent. Your's doesn't.

Finally, states choosing not to implement CHL have absolutely no bearing on the cons utionality of said laws. The fact is, multiple courts have upheld the cons utionality of concealed carry laws as Justice Scalia cited in his majority opinion.

[DMC]

and they're stated as such. You have a problem with stating your opinion as if it were fact. It's not.

My opinion is in fact my opinion. That's how I stated it.

unfortunately for you, the opinion I cited actually matters as it establishes precedent. Your's doesn't.

Then why did you ask?

How is it unfortunate for me? I suffer none.

Finally, states choosing not to implement CHL have absolutely no bearing on the cons utionality of said laws. The fact is, multiple courts have upheld the cons utionality of concealed carry laws as Justice Scalia cited in his majority opinion.

I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the cons utional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs er wasn't about open carry vs concealment.

But then you didn't ask about open carry. You asked about CHL, and at the moment that's how CHL is being used, as a permit for open carry.

[Th'Pusher]

My opinion is in fact my opinion. That's how I stated it.

Then why did you ask?

How is it unfortunate for me? I suffer none.

I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the cons utional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs er wasn't about open carry vs concealment.

But then you didn't ask about open carry. You asked about CHL, and at the moment that's how CHL is being used, as a permit for open carry.

The cases cited said nothing of permits.

Basically you're saying you disagree with established law, which is fine, but they're not uncons utional.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quan y of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

They even outline the specific regulations required.

Here is Article I of the Cons ution:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Like I said, original do ents from the founders not NRA shill blogs.

This notion that well regulated didn't mean regulation and only a narrow interpretation is laughable frankly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

They even outline the specific regulations required.

Here is Article I of the Cons ution:



Like I said, original do ents from the founders not NRA shill blogs.

This notion that well regulated didn't mean regulation and only a narrow interpretation is laughable frankly.

In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Cons ution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Cons ution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Cons ution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Cons ution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

[z0sa]

Militias are fine, but the wording doesn't indicate it as a caveat to possessing a firearm. Possession was well understood and accepted by all of the framers. The argument was between folks who wanted a standing army (federalists) and those who were against it (anti-federalists). The 2A was there to ensure that the people would always pose a greater force than the standing army. Whether that's been defeated is another question altogether. The 2A mentions the concerns of the anti-federalists and then goes on to set a condition where the general population cannot be coerced through force to surrender their weapons.

The old arguments dont have any merit anymore. Instead Im attempting to preserve the intent that one may bear arms freely and openly as long as one is in good standing wirh his or her local chapter. Most liberals are happy because gun owners now are publicly registered and trained. Gun nuts are happy because gun regulation occurs at the local or at most, state level.

[DMC]

The old arguments dont have any merit anymore. Instead Im attempting to preserve the intent that one may bear arms freely and openly as long as one is in good standing wirh his or her local chapter. Most liberals are happy because gun owners now are publicly registered and trained. Gun nuts are happy because gun regulation occurs at the local or at most, state level.

The old arguments don't have merit? Try telling that to the SCOTUS. It was never the intent you mentioned. Most gun owners aren't publicly registered or trained. Not sure what you're talking about.

[DMC]

The cases cited said nothing of permits.

Of course not. Why should they? You asked about CHL.

Basically you're saying you disagree with established law, which is fine, but they're not uncons utional.

That's your opinion. The established law in DC was found to be uncons utional. Why do you take the stance that "established law" has any bearing on cons utionality?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Stay off the lists

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12...inglepage=true

2nd amendment rights stripped from SSI recipients.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a on your exclusionary take.

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is cons uted the guardian of the national security.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a on your exclusionary take.

The "militia" was a check against a tyrannical government, and you want me to believe the founding fathers wanted said tyrannical government to regulate the only check against them?

You want to play the Federalist paper game?

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus cir stanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.



Hamilton's Federalist No. 28.If the representatives of the people betray their cons uents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

[TheSanityAnnex]

There are instance from the 18th century in politics of well regulated meaning regulated.

Here is one from Federalist 29 which takes a on your exclusionary take.

nice cherry picking of 29 to try and support your claim. Read in its entirety it the intentions are obvious. The militia is a state's check against a tyrannical federal government.

Federalist No. 29, by Alexander Hamilton (some paragraph breaks added):

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is cons uted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly ins utions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. . . .
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Cons ution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. 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 en le them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus cir scribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if cir stances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only subs ute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[Th'Pusher]

Of course not. Why should they? You asked about CHL.

That's your opinion. The established law in DC was found to be uncons utional. Why do you take the stance that "established law" has any bearing on cons utionality?

Cute. I've have you pigeonholed into a claim that can only be established by a court.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Have fun. I'm sure you have standing.

In the meantime observers can weigh your argument with mine.

[DMC]

Cute. I've have you pigeonholed into a claim that can only be established by a court.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Have fun. I'm sure you have standing.

In the meantime observers can weigh your argument with mine.

The case you mentioned didn't address CHL being used as a permit for open carry. You even stated so yourself.

lost in the abstract
idiot
not understanding the term "pigeonhole"

Pigeonholing is any process that attempts to classify disparate en ies into a small number of categories (usually, mutually exclusive ones).

The term usually carries connotations of criticism, implying that the classification scheme referred to inadequately reflects the en ies being sorted, or that it is based on stereotypes.[1]

Common failings of pigeonholing schemes include:

Categories are poorly defined (often because they are subjective).
En ies may be suited to more than one category. Example: rhubarb is both 'poisonous' and 'edible'.
En ies may not fit into any available category. Example: asking somebody from Washington, DC which state they live in.
En ies may change over time, so they no longer fit the category in which they have been placed. Example: certain species of fish may change from male to female during their life.
Attempting to discretize properties that would be better viewed as a continuum. Example: attempting to sort people into 'introverted' and 'extraverted'.
Criteria used to categorize en ies do not accurately predict the properties ascribed to those categories. Example: relying on astrological sign as a guide to someone's personality.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That a militia was intended to prevent tyranny is not mutually exclusive with it being regulated, dimwit. Please point me to the part that contradicts Hamilton saying that a well regulated militia was certain to be regulated by the government.

Still do not know what mutual exclusive means I see. Your ability to deduct remains nil because you are dumb as .

[boutons_deux]

the sense of "regulated" 200+ years ago was "organized, managed, directed, lead"

2nd Amendment doesn't preclude (severe) regulation of gun ownership.

NRA/GOA/BigGun has conned, suckered you gullible gun fellators as badly, as hilariously as Trash has conned, bait-n-switched his supporters.

[CosmicCowboy]

@ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...

[TheSanityAnnex]

That a militia was intended to prevent tyranny is not mutually exclusive with it being regulated, dimwit. Please point me to the part that contradicts Hamilton saying that a well regulated militia was certain to be regulated by the government.

Still do not know what mutual exclusive means I see. Your ability to deduct remains nil because you are dumb as .

If it wasn't written to mean well regulated by the federal government than what do you think meaning of well regulated is in the 2nd amendment?

[Th'Pusher]

Even the court offers an opinion. Are you that ing stupid?

You asked for my opinion. In order to give it you have to interpret the 2A. That's how I interpret it. Most states agree with me since very few have laws against open carry.

The case you mentioned didn't address CHL being used as a permit for open carry. You even stated so yourself.

lost in the abstract
idiot
not understanding the term "pigeonhole"

Pigeonholing is any process that attempts to classify disparate en ies into a small number of categories (usually, mutually exclusive ones).

The term usually carries connotations of criticism, implying that the classification scheme referred to inadequately reflects the en ies being sorted, or that it is based on stereotypes.[1]

Common failings of pigeonholing schemes include:

Categories are poorly defined (often because they are subjective).
En ies may be suited to more than one category. Example: rhubarb is both 'poisonous' and 'edible'.
En ies may not fit into any available category. Example: asking somebody from Washington, DC which state they live in.
En ies may change over time, so they no longer fit the category in which they have been placed. Example: certain species of fish may change from male to female during their life.
Attempting to discretize properties that would be better viewed as a continuum. Example: attempting to sort people into 'introverted' and 'extraverted'.
Criteria used to categorize en ies do not accurately predict the properties ascribed to those categories. Example: relying on astrological sign as a guide to someone's personality.

You got me on an incorrect use of the phrase pigeon hole

too bad states implementing concealed carry laws aren't uncons utional.

[Th'Pusher]

@ the wannabe Supreme Court judges.

Fuzzy's quoting Hamilton like it's law is hilarious.

Someone should start quoting Jefferson and pretend his quotes are law too...

go rub DMC's balls. You weren't even stupid enough to back his ridiculous claim that chl is uncons utional.

[DMC]

You got me on an incorrect use of the phrase pigeon hole

too bad states implementing concealed carry laws aren't uncons utional.

1. Never said they were (that's not what you asked). CHL is a license, CC is a law. Concealed Handgun License vs Concealed Carry.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about as made evident by your poor vocabulary and sloppy understanding of context.
3. triggered
4. toy for the board conservatives

[Th'Pusher]

1. Never said they were (that's not what you asked). CHL is a license, CC is a law. Concealed Handgun License vs Concealed Carry.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about as made evident by your poor vocabulary and sloppy understanding of context.
3. triggered
4. toy for the board conservatives

you're always reduced to parsing
CHL is uncons utional
I used justice scalia to you

[DMC]

you're always reduced to parsing
CHL is uncons utional
I used justice scalia to you

equivocating CHL with CC
equivocating DC vs er with either
looking up to Fuzzy
using words you don't understand
pigeonholed