Jerry Brown signs ban on open-carry handguns

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Seriously Gary, how can you say that it isn't. Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

What part of " a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" don't you understand? This isn't complex constitutional law, it's plain language that you are willfully disregarding so that it suits your personal goals. You're still wrong about the initial intent.

Now, the Heller decision takes away the part that ties a militia to gun ownership.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..

[slim 1,525]

Under the original intent of the 2nd amendment? No, it's quite clear that it was intended for our national defense because we did not have a national standing army. We do now, and don't need weekend warriors who have had too many natty lights to defend our country. However, in light of the Heller decision, apparently, the original intent and context of the amendment is moot.

The second amendment is not about national defense. (Not entirely, anyway.) It's about having the means to resist tyranny. Read a little history and you'll figure that out. At the time the amendment was written, we did, in fact, have a standing army.

Slim, it is a good thing that you will never be a member of congress. Your inability to even grasp basic history and reading is profoundly shocking. Our forefathers had to take up arms as we were in a war with no standing army. That is no longer the case, you should update yourself.

We had a standing army, you history buff!

Slim, again, reading comprehension would be a big help to you here. No, it isn't covered under the 2nd Amendment, and your fundamental misinterpretation of the history and context of the 2nd Amendment is shockingly puerile.

You obviously get it. We'll never have our right to duck hunt taken away!

There is no purpose for it other than to further a crime or evade capture. Is that why you want it?

I actually want it so I can continue fighting if struck by a projectile.

No they wouldn't, that is a stupid fallacy.

Further evidence of you "getting it."

Slim, I'm actually a libertarian, although I am a civil libertarian and not one of those moron libertarians who want to legalize all drugs and abolish all government except for a mayors, sheriffs and local government, those people are borderline retarded.

A libertarian who wants a strong central government. What's that called?

So you take your cues from Jay Leno now? I don't, so what is your point here? Fifty cars is excessive, I agree.

The point was someone who views someone else's constitutionally-protected right as being "excessive" should check themself first.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Are you actually insinuating the body armor assisted this man in perpetrating the crime?

If so, what helped him more, the few layers of fabric he wore under his shirt, or the machine that transported him several miles to the crime scene and aided him in immediately departing it?

The man wore it to ensure that he would be able to get through any law enforcement that may be there. His intent was to kill his ex-wife, no matter who stood in his way.

The practical use for civilians is the same as it is for police - to lessen the severity of getting shot.

Which federal ban are you talking about? The one that was overturned in 2009 by the circuit court in LA? Funny that it would be overturned in LA of all places. It's no surprise to me you think something should be available to government agents but not civilians. This proves you have no concept of what the 2nd amendment was put in place to do. Body armor may not be specifically covered but the 2A was put in place for folks to fight the government and retain their means to do so. Body armor would aid in that capability.

Funny that you mention that it was overturned in 2009, cause it was reinstated in 2010 in California, by a republican governor.

Civilians have no use for body armor unless they are planning to avoid capture from law enforcement. So unless you are going to go rob a bank, or plan on taking a domestic terrorist militia group up to some compound and defend yourself, you have no practical use for it.

Perhaps it's you that doesn't realize who the imbecile is. You're insinuating that an item used in only a handful of crimes - nationwide - is more detrimental to our safety than an item used in almost every crime.

Slim, I know what the word means, and it still fits you. Comparing a car to a gun in terms of its usage and intent is asinine.

Zombies is a nice way of saying, "urban poor" and/or "stupid ** anti-gunners" who weren't smart enough to prepare for the coming fight. They will act exactly like zombies.

I realize language isn't your best skill, but you should be clear in using your words. Zombie is not a common euphemism for "urban poor".

I own several. Don't you?

Along with helmets, gas masks and a whole bunch of other ####### that serves "no practical purpose" I'm doing my part to ensure our safety.

What federal ban are you talking about?

Apparently, there is a federal ban on body armor for felons. No, I don't have body armor, and I don't know that you should either.

Where's the law prohibiting me from owning body armor?

Being a good citizen almost requires me to own body armor and frankly, I'm surprised more people don't. You'd think with the relative ease of use and affordability, more folks would have some just laying around.

I would think a good citizen would follow the laws of the nation they profess to be a citizen of.

[slim 1,525]

What part of " a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" don't you understand? This isn't complex constitutional law, it's plain language that you are willfully disregarding so that it suits your personal goals. You're still wrong about the initial intent.

Since you ducked and dodged the question before, perhaps you can answer it now. What is a militia?

You can also explain to us what well regulated means. (Since you're an expert.)

[The_Dude 1,142]

Since you ducked and dodged the question before, perhaps you can answer it now. What is a militia?

You can also explain to us what well regulated means. (Since you're an expert.)

Slim, don't play stupid, I know you aren't on this subject. We didn't have a standing army at the time and relied upon citizens who made up local militias for the defense of our nation. So, even you can see how it was necessary. Read the literal text of the Amendment Slim, it's quite clear, even you can read it. Now, that part has been rendered moot with the Heller decision. But don't pretend that the initial intent of it was for the citizens to rise up against the government, you're lying or simple.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Seriously Gary, how can you say that it isn't. Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

What part of " a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" don't you understand? This isn't complex constitutional law, it's plain language that you are willfully disregarding so that it suits your personal goals. You're still wrong about the initial intent.

Now, the Heller decision takes away the part that ties a militia to gun ownership.

The second amendement is an indiviual right to own firearms that applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government as determined by the Suprem Court decisions of of 2008 and 2010. It has nothing to do with national defense.

Supreme court decisions do not change the "intent" of an amendment, they clarify it. any other interpretation of the intent was not "changed", it was wrong.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The second amendement is an indiviual right to own firearms that applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government as determined by the Suprem Court decisions of of 2008 and 2010. It has nothing to do with national defense.

+1

Supreme court decisions do not change the "intent" of an amendment, they clarify it. any other interpretation of the intent was not "changed", it was wrong.

-1

There was no clarification Gary, they eliminated the first sentence of the text. That is not clarifying it, that is eliminating the text of it. Stop lying to yourself.

[slim 1,525]

Still not going to tell us what a militia is, huh? Nor going to clarify what well regulated means? Also, you should really decide, are you in favor of the text as written or your so-called, "context?" (I only ask because at times you tell us to read the words then other times tell us about the context. Those postings are typically at odds with one another.)

Last question, was the second amendment written before the war or after?

[The_Dude 1,142]

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..

Good point Bill, but the 2nd Amendment was written in 1790, and ratified on December 15, 1791.

Still not going to tell us what a militia is, huh? Nor going to clarify what well regulated means? Also, you should really decide, are you in favor of the text as written or your so-called, "context?" (I only ask because at times you tell us to read the words then other times tell us about the context. Those postings are typically at odds with one another.)

Last question, was the second amendment written before the war or after?

Slim, you are capable of using a dictionary.

mi·li·tia - /mɪˈlɪʃə/ - [mi-lish-uh]- noun

- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

- all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

[slim 1,525]

Good point Bill, but the 2nd Amendment was written in 1790, and ratified on December 15, 1791.

When was the standing army formed?

Slim, you are capable of using a dictionary.

mi·li·tia - /mɪˈlɪʃə/ - [mi-lish-uh]- noun

- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

- all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

So, by definition, we're all part of the militia?

[The_Dude 1,142]

When was the standing army formed?

So, by definition, we're all part of the militia?

Seriously Slim, learn to read one of these days, you probably wouldn't ask so many foolish questions. I have answered them, you are just harping on sad semantics at this point. Is your strategy here to post such insanely stupid ideas that I'll just close the browser? I'm done on this as you don't seem have any sort of understanding.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

We know that the 2nd amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights 1689. For this reason, the Supreme Court got it right.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good point Bill, but the 2nd Amendment was written in 1790, and ratified on December 15, 1791.

So, such a law might be based on the Second Amendment? I am just saying...

[The_Dude 1,142]

So, such a law might be based on the Second Amendment? I am just saying...

Or to clarify it as times had changed. The point is, when the 2nd amendment was written, we didn't have a standing army, so we needed an armed citizenry to wage a revolution. After the war, we still didn't have a standing army, and depending on your source, we didn't have a true army professional standing army until WWII.

However, all this is immaterial after the Heller decision. There is no need to interpret the original intent of the amendment as it has been stripped from consideration. Your right to own a gun is a right outside of national defense or a militia.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Or to clarify it as times had changed. The point is, when the 2nd amendment was written, we didn't have a standing army, so we needed an armed citizenry to wage a revolution. After the war, we still didn't have a standing army, and depending on your source, we didn't have a true army professional standing army until WWII.

However, all this is immaterial after the Heller decision. There is no need to interpret the original intent of the amendment as it has been stripped from consideration. Your right to own a gun is a right outside of national defense or a militia.

The Constitution was written after the Revolution.