Guns: how much longer will it take ....

InfraBlue wrote:

That's what the Constitution says.

That is incorrect. The Constitution does not allow you to restrict a fundamental right so that it can be exercised only by members of a group that does not exist.

If you want to restrict a fundamental right to "only members of a militia" you have to first have such a militia.

(And note that militiamen will have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home.)

InfraBlue wrote:

Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.

That is incorrect. Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well regulated" is completely different from the way you are trying to use the term.

Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No they don't.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

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 intitle 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 labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour 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.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Your proposals are blatantly unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

If any regulation violates the Constitution, it wouldn't be a regulation.

Nonsense.

No it's not.

Being in violation of the Constitution does not preclude a regulation from being a regulation.

InfraBlue wrote:

Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.
Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.

That is incorrect. Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well regulated" is completely different from the way you are trying to use the term.

Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No they don't.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

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 intitle 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 labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour 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.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

The group of souls able to bear arms numbers in the hundreds of millions definitely exists; they are the militia.

No they don't or won't.

Second amendment creeps are never going to stop shooting up schools.
It's what they do.

We protect our children from NRA filth,

which is why we don't have any school shootings.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

People shouldn't be able to keep certain types of arms.

OK.

But there are also certain types of arms that people have the right to possess.

For example, the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

And the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

Ok.

InfraBlue wrote:

The group of souls able to bear arms numbers in the hundreds of millions definitely exists; they are the militia.

So you consider the entire citizenry of the US to be militiamen and thereby possessing the right to keep and bear arms??

You do not argue that a person has to be a member of a specific government-organized military body in order to count as a militiaman for Second Amendment purposes??

InfraBlue wrote:

No they don't or won't.

That is incorrect. Militiamen have the right to have arms that are sufficient for carrying out militia duties. That means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

People shouldn't be able to keep certain types of arms.

OK.

But there are also certain types of arms that people have the right to possess.

For example, the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

And the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

Ok.

That last line, about people having the right to have any gun that there is no reason to prohibit, is why your 1994 ban on pistol grips is unconstitutional.

There is no justification for outlawing pistol grips.

Same also for the other prohibited features, like barrel shrouds and retractable stocks.

oralloy wrote:

That last line, about people having the right to have any gun that there is no reason to prohibit, is why your 1994 ban on pistol grips is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 was judged to be constitutional.

oralloy wrote:

There is no justification for outlawing pistol grips.
Same also for the other prohibited features, like barrel shrouds and retractable stocks.

OK.

That's how James Madison describes the militia in The Federalist Papers : No. 46

No it isn't. Your assertions about the peoples' rights in regard to the militia are merely opinions.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

That last line, about people having the right to have any gun that there is no reason to prohibit, is why your 1994 ban on pistol grips is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

You've already agreed that the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

And now below you've agreed that there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks.

InfraBlue wrote:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 was judged to be constitutional.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court never has ruled on the issue.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is no justification for outlawing pistol grips.
Same also for the other prohibited features, like barrel shrouds and retractable stocks.

OK.

You've agreed previously that the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's how James Madison describes the militia in The Federalist Papers : No. 46

Do you agree with him? Not all people do.

It would help me reply to your posts if I knew for sure where you stand.

I'd actually been under the assumption that you did not agree with him.

InfraBlue wrote:

No it isn't. Your assertions about the peoples' rights in regard to the militia are merely opinions.

That is incorrect. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to address their concerns that a tyrannical government would try to prevent the militia from being adequately armed.

It is the direct intention of the Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment ensure that militiamen have weapons adequate to carry out their constitutional duties.

You're having a critical difficulty keeping up with the argument.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court let the lower Court rulings stand.

oralloy wrote:

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to address their concerns that a tyrannical government would try to prevent the militia from being adequately armed.

It is the direct intention of the Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment ensure that militiamen have weapons adequate to carry out their constitutional duties.

No it's not. These are merely assertions of yours, as well.

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct.

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're having a critical difficulty keeping up with the argument.

Not at all. You've agreed that the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

And you've agreed that there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court never has ruled on the issue.

InfraBlue wrote:

The Supreme Court let the lower Court rulings stand.

That does not change the fact that the Supreme Court never has ruled on the issue.

Not that it would mean anything even if they had made such a ruling in the past (note how little Roe v Wade meant to the current court).

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to address their concerns that a tyrannical government would try to prevent the militia from being adequately armed.

It is the direct intention of the Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment ensure that militiamen have weapons adequate to carry out their constitutional duties.

No it's not. These are merely assertions of yours, as well.

That is incorrect. Recorded history is not a mere assertion of mine. The Second Amendment evolved from the proposals put forth by the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

The Virginia Ratifying Convention wrote:

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct.

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/virginia-ratifying-convention-amendment-proposals-va/

One thing is protecting the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting; another thing is the opinion that there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks.

No it’s not. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 was judged to be constitutional.

That the Supreme Court never has ruled on the constitutionality of The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 does not make The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 unconstitutional.

oralloy wrote:

Not that it would mean anything even if they had made such a ruling in the past (note how little Roe v Wade meant to the current court).

Until that happens The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994 is constitutional.