New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

[Seran]

Well regulated militia. A militia at the time of the Constitution was citizenry that could be called up to bolster military response during times of war and unrest. That the framers spelled out that it had to be well regulated seems to be continuously escaping your cognitive abilities.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well regulated militia. A militia at the time of the Constitution was citizenry that could be called up to bolster military response during times of war and unrest. That the framers spelled out that it had to be well regulated seems to be continuously escaping your cognitive abilities.

In addition to your other PHDs, I didn't realize the constitution was also one of your areas of expertise. Since it's so crystal clear, how come the government hasn't just taken everyone's guns already?

[Gelston]

Only brain dead, emotional, estrogen filled losers like you believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is talking about the military. It makes zero sense in the context of the time and writing.

But you never let stuff like making sense stop you from making a "point" have you?

Fucking retard.

lol, at the time it was written, a militia was created by a rich dude that funded it and paid for a commission. I guess Seran wants Elon Musk to have a private army.

[Seran]

Oh look, another example of an idiot with a gun trying to punish people at a night club. Florida being infamous for its mass shootings at bars, this very nearly could have been a massive tragedy. Surely shooting up a crowded bar for not being able to find your keys isn't what the framers meant by a well regulated militia.

Florida man ‘upset’ over missing car keys opens fire in bar, taken down by patrons: deputies


Connor Anderson had been inside Smiles Nite Club in Palm Coast with a woman Sunday night when witnesses said he was unable to find his car keys and "became upset," according to the Flagler County Sheriff's Office.

Anderson left the bar and returned with a firearm, putting the woman into a headlock and holding the gun to her head, deputies said.

Patrons intervened and tried to disarm Anderson as he fired the gun approximately six times toward several patrons inside the bar, according to authorities. Patrons were able to tackle Anderson to the ground before he fled the bar.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-m...trons-deputies

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh look, another example of an idiot with a gun trying to punish people at a night club. Florida being infamous for its mass shootings at bars, this very nearly could have been a massive tragedy. Surely shooting up a crowded bar for not being able to find your keys isn't what the framers meant by a well regulated militia.

Troll says what?

[Suppressed Poet]

Well regulated militia. A militia at the time of the Constitution was citizenry that could be called up to bolster military response during times of war and unrest. That the framers spelled out that it had to be well regulated seems to be continuously escaping your cognitive abilities.

Please educate yourself by reading the Heller decision. I’ll make it super easy for you by bolding the most relative parts of the prefatory clause defining a well-regulated militia.

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into com* panies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Feder* alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the mili* tia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congression* ally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump* tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden* tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Con* gress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the re* spective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the 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.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

[Suppressed Poet]

Oh look, another example of an idiot with a gun trying to punish people at a night club. Florida being infamous for its mass shootings at bars, this very nearly could have been a massive tragedy. Surely shooting up a crowded bar for not being able to find your keys isn't what the framers meant by a well regulated militia.



https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-m...trons-deputies

What is it that you mean to accomplish by calling Florida infamous for mass shootings, or imply that Republicans want to murder innocent people? All reasonable Americans, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, mourn the loss of life from senseless murders. Legally responsible gun owners are not your enemy.

We could say Colorado is infamous for mass shootings, but that is just insensitive & stupid to even mention. Mass shootings happen in all states red & blue alike. Colorado already has laws for magazine capacity restrictions, red flag laws, etc. Please tell me…what exactly is it you suggest and will you guarantee that such laws will prevent mass murders in the future?

[Parkbandit]

Please educate yourself by reading the Heller decision. I’ll make it super easy for you by bolding the most relative parts of the prefatory clause defining a well-regulated militia.

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into com* panies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Feder* alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the mili* tia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congression* ally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump* tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden* tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Con* gress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the re* spective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the 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.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

You are wasting your time. Seran is the Retard Champion for a reason.

Just enjoy him for the entertainment value and remind yourself that there are some really, REALLY stupid people out there.

[Parkbandit]

What is it that you mean to accomplish by calling Florida infamous for mass shootings, or imply that Republicans want to murder innocent people? All reasonable Americans, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, mourn the loss of life from senseless murders. Legally responsible gun owners are not your enemy.

We could say Colorado is infamous for mass shootings, but that is just insensitive & stupid to even mention. Mass shootings happen in all states red & blue alike. Colorado already has laws for magazine capacity restrictions, red flag laws, etc. Please tell me…what exactly is it you suggest and will you guarantee that such laws will prevent mass murders in the future?

As of October 2022, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 23 total shootings since 1982. The source defines a mass shooting as a shooting where four or more people were killed.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0were%20killed.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

As of October 2022, California had the most mass shootings in the United States, with 23 total shootings since 1982. The source defines a mass shooting as a shooting where four or more people were killed.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...0were%20killed.

Interesting. Where would you think California falls on restrictive gun laws? More restrictive I'd guess. Data, go figure.