The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Care to reveal how u differ
from Justice Scalia ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Care to reveal how u differ
from Justice Scalia ?

He focuses exclusively on civilian self defense.

That part of the right is certainly important, but I would like it better if he also addressed:

a) the right of militia members to keep military weapons at home, and

b) the requirement that the government have an armed militia for people to join if they so desire.

It is quite clear that the second amendment doesn't give everyone the right to bear arms. The conservative majority on the court is wrong once again.

Quote:

It is quite clear that the second amendment doesn't give everyone the right to bear arms. The conservative majority on the court is wrong once again.

It wonderful to have such a constitutional expert on this website.

footnote it was not formal militiamen for the most part that attacked the Brits on their return to Boston after Concord but just everyone who could get there with a firearms of any type.

That doesn't contradict my statements.

The right to bear arms rests only with the militia.

Try reading the second amendment.

Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

Advocate wrote:

Try reading the second amendment.

I already know it by heart.

Advocate wrote:

Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Probably not.

Advocate wrote:

Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

No. I am saying there are no militiamen today.

Advocate wrote:

Try reading the second amendment.

I already know it by heart.

Advocate wrote:

Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Probably not.

Advocate wrote:

Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

No. I am saying there are no militiamen today.

Quote:

That doesn't contradict my statements.

That task I will leave up to the founding fathers.....

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."


Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Noah Webster, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

Advocate wrote:

The right to bear arms rests only with the militia.

That argument is logically untenable.

Before you can logically argue that any right is limited only to militiamen, you first need to have militiamen.

There are other issues with it too, but let's start here.

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Try reading the second amendment.

I already know it by heart.

Advocate wrote:

Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Probably not.

Advocate wrote:

Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

No. I am saying there are no militiamen today.

It is obvious that Article I Section 8 contemplates militiamen of selected militia,
i.e., government-financed n equipped militia,
as distinct from well-regulated militia, private militia,
mentioned in 2A as being the beneficiary of a citizen's right to KABA.
It is possible that there might exist private militia in America.


Arguably, the mutineers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11/1
had organized themselves into a de facto well-regulated militia
(i.e., non-government militia) before thay took the plane back from the Moslems.

Arguably, the merchants who armed themselves in defense from
the L.A. race riots were also de facto well-regulated militia,
as were the Mormon militia of the 18OOs, the critical factor being
that government have no hand in controlling those militia,
whose primary function was to prevent government from running away
with the country as was later done in Russia & Germany.

Advocate wrote:

Try reading the second amendment.

I already know it by heart.

Advocate wrote:

Maybe you can tell us where it is wrong.

Probably not.

Advocate wrote:

Are you saying there were no militiamen when the amendment was made?

No. I am saying there are no militiamen today.

Sorry the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. No need for a well regulated anything.

Do you accept the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA (tax, fine)? If so then you have to accept the ruling on the 2nd Amendment. They were made by the same "Conservative" court.

Government defined the equipment they should have and the training they were required to participate in. That's what "well-regulated" means.