Need help fighting 2nd Amendment clown

[RDak]

Have him read the recent Heller Supreme Court Case.

 

[hugh damright]

.In cases of insurrection or rebellion, a Militia can be authorized to disarm an Anarchy or Mob of individuals who keep and bear arms, and are not part of a well regulated Militia.
...
The 2A only exempts those individuals who keep and bear arms and who are part of a militia of such individuals. Everyone else, (i.e. an anarchy or mob of individuals who keep and bear arms) is subject to State gun control laws in the State where they reside; and it can be considered part of the traditional police power of a State, to ensure its domestic tranquility and security.

I think we have to make a distinction between a rebellion by a minority and a rebellion by a majority ... yes, militia could be authorized to suppress a rebellion by a minority, but if the rebellion is by a majority, then couldn't the militia be authorized to suppress the government? It seems that in either case the intent would be a free State, where the final authority resides in the body of citizens.

The assertion that the Second Amendment exempts militia members from State gun laws could be answered by referring to Presser v Illinois, with the SCOTUS saying that the militia is "all citizens capable of bearing arms", and saying that the Second Amendment does not bind the States (i.e. it does not exempt militia members from State gun laws), but that regardless, the States' gun control powers have federal limits, and State gun laws must not go so far "as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government". So (1) the militia is not a select force but rather the general population and (2) federal protection of individual arms for militia use does not come from the Second Amendment.

 

[Ed4032]

Every right listed in the Bill of Rights is an individuals right that the government may not refuse. Why would the second one listed be an exception? Even better why would the authors deem it necessary to state that the military must be allowed to bear arms? Isn't that what they do.

 

[nitetrane98]

While Heller was definitely a good decision from our point of view, using it to bolster an argument can easily be defeated by simply contending that the SCOTUS was wrong. After all, 4 of the 9 justices voted the other way. Had Heller gone the other way would we be citing it to defend our positions? Of course not. We would be bemoaning the fact that they were a bunch of idiots.
So unless the OP's nemesis is of the type to subborn his argument to "Well, that settles it, the SCOTUS says so." I doubt it would be an effective argument.
Of course to supporters of our form of government that is what must happen when the SCOTUS rules on an issue. Opinions no longer matter. All that's left is a change to the wording of the Constitution by amendment. Good luck with that.

 

[DammitBoy]

Thanks for the help guys.

My personal opinion is that this guy knows exactly what he is saying and doing - just to stir up folks on this other forum.

 

[RDak]

While Heller was definitely a good decision from our point of view, using it to bolster an argument can easily be defeated by simply contending that the SCOTUS was wrong. After all, 4 of the 9 justices voted the other way. Had Heller gone the other way would we be citing it to defend our positions? Of course not. We would be bemoaning the fact that they were a bunch of idiots.
So unless the OP's nemesis is of the type to subborn his argument to "Well, that settles it, the SCOTUS says so." I doubt it would be an effective argument.
Of course to supporters of our form of government that is what must happen when the SCOTUS rules on an issue. Opinions no longer matter. All that's left is a change to the wording of the Constitution by amendment. Good luck with that.

Heller was very well written as to the history of the 2nd Amendment. If someone disagrees with that history they will have to prove it.

Therefore, the Heller decision provides a GREAT discussion in support of the individual right to private firearms ownership.

Using Steven's dissent as a basis for saying the majority opinion is wrong could only appeal to an idiot IMHO.

If all someone has to do to win an argument is say "well they were/are wrong", then what's the point in arguing with them in the first place? I don't like to argue with idiots.