Heller vs DC doesn't agree with you.
Term limits are not allowed under our Constitution.
I don't think the poll had all the choices. One should have been this is the hill I'm willing to defend to the end.
Last edited:
The militia as the founders intended it is basically a call to arms. That is all men of fighting age 16 to 60 or something along those lines. May be 18-50 but it is specified. It is stated and there is no confusion as to what the militia was or is. Now I’ll be with my hands in the air. Couldn’t tell you were I read it. Probably the federalist papers somewhere. They go over a lot of topics from the Constitution specifically so there would be no question. Just like the definition of arms. “ every destructive device of war or the soldier is the birthright of the American”. Even states what you are supposed to show up with. A long arm, powder, ball, and a hatchet or sword. They didn’t provide weapons, you were expected to bring your own.
DC v Heller is literally the supreme court precedent that establishes a right to keep and bear arms for entirely personal reasons separate from taking defensive/offensive action for the state. I think Scalia even discusses the prefatory and operative clauses in his rationale.
Would they? What else would a "true Libertarian' say?
Some Libertarians would argue against borders as well.
Being an independent-thinking fellow, I can choose a position contrary to whatever party I'm assigned, I don't have to blindly follow a platform.
Let's be clear - I voluntarily choose to be this way, I haven't been drafted into one party or another.
No!!! You can't have nuanced opinions! Tow the party line completely or don't have political opinions at all!
This sort of partisan thinking/"no true scotsman" mentality is why our republic is in the shape it's in. The party system in general seems like a mistake. I don't think it could be eliminated but one would hope there could be a system where a candidate would just run on their values and let their actions/statements dictate their voter base, not what color tie they wear.
I think it's important to state, if no one has - the constitution is just a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper that acknowledges rights that should be *inherently* ours as humans / God-given. Keep this in mind when they try to twist or change the piece of paper - if it ceases to acknowledge your inherent rights, cease to acknowledge the piece of paper. My rights are my rights.
The supreme court has issued some fairly strong opinions on this topic.
Its been a while since I read one.
As best I recall, about 15 or 20 years ago.
It was back in the days when every gun had to have a gun lock included with it if it was sold new.
As I recall, the case was about a court bailiff in Washington DC that used a personal firearm to defend himself in an off duty situation in his home.
At the time DC required personal firearms to be stored unloaded and locked, but his was not prior to having to defend himself.
A court officer allowed by the state to openly carry a gun in a court house, and he was charged for having an unlocked loaded gun in his home. Legal possession of the gun was not an issue. The situation was discovered when he used the gun in self defense. The NRA wanted a case like it, and helped drive it to the supreme court.
The court affirmed the second amendment is an individual right, not the right of the state or of a local government.
The court said clause regarding a militia is an example of how the right can be used, but did not limit an individuals right or require them to be part of an recognized group. The same ruling also stated that we have a right to defend ourselves and that a firearm is a legitimate means of defending ourselves.
I wish I could remember the exact citation, but both the majority and minority opinions were well thought out and worth reading. Its some of the most well considered logic on what the second amendment means I have ever read. Its also written by the people who have the authority to interpret it.
Read the real thing, not the soundbites and quotes out of context put forward by spin doctors on both sides of the question.
Its been a while since I read one.
As best I recall, about 15 or 20 years ago.
It was back in the days when every gun had to have a gun lock included with it if it was sold new.
As I recall, the case was about a court bailiff in Washington DC that used a personal firearm to defend himself in an off duty situation in his home.
At the time DC required personal firearms to be stored unloaded and locked, but his was not prior to having to defend himself.
A court officer allowed by the state to openly carry a gun in a court house, and he was charged for having an unlocked loaded gun in his home. Legal possession of the gun was not an issue. The situation was discovered when he used the gun in self defense. The NRA wanted a case like it, and helped drive it to the supreme court.
The court affirmed the second amendment is an individual right, not the right of the state or of a local government.
The court said clause regarding a militia is an example of how the right can be used, but did not limit an individuals right or require them to be part of an recognized group. The same ruling also stated that we have a right to defend ourselves and that a firearm is a legitimate means of defending ourselves.
I wish I could remember the exact citation, but both the majority and minority opinions were well thought out and worth reading. Its some of the most well considered logic on what the second amendment means I have ever read. Its also written by the people who have the authority to interpret it.
Read the real thing, not the soundbites and quotes out of context put forward by spin doctors on both sides of the question.
Replace "should be" with "are" and I'm with you.
And yes, even without the Second Amendment to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we still do and always will have that right.
Woody
Similar threads
