Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms

Been following this for a while, hoping for a favorable outcome.

United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court
[link to www.loc.gov]

I'm not so optimistic that the outcome will be favorable, IF they hear the cases. It seems doubtful they will even hear them though?

Bear means tote it around, that's what they did back then, used a rifle for a walking companion.

bear1
be(ə)r/
verb
1. (of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug

Screw them and their "ruling". They "rule" over nothing of mine and most certainly not over my Creator endowed right to defend myself.

the writers of the Constitution, are your Creators?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

NO where does it say that it is only for self defense.
it says shall not be infringed.
All gun control laws violate the amendment.

No - Article 2 only let's you keep a gun inside your house. It is pretty clear about that. If you look at Jefferson's writings, he was only talking about indoors, as in, your house. Like your papers and other personal effects.

Now go pay your NRA yearly fee.

So if someone shoots at you outside your home you can't shoot back?

This is worrisome. Roberts has already proven himself to be bought off or blackmailed to rule unjustly. ie ACA

Thread: I'll Clarify the Meaning / Intent of "right to bear arms" for the Supreme Court
For the idiots that think that the 2nd amendment was meant to limit persons to muskets even to extend that stupidity to today, I say what the framers meant was for persons to be able to own and bear arms in whatever type weapon is available to and equal to the threat posed by those who would impose tyranny. If AR-15s were around then and RPG's etc., then those too would have been in the framer's minds as to what they would want persons to be able to own and bear.

As for whether they meant to bear an arm only in one's home, well I'll make that perfectly clear right here and now, not everyone lived in a home / dwelling. There were frontiersmen, people who lived off the land, tents in the wide open and they all had arms if they could afford them and their rights are the rights of all persons in this country home owner or not. So the issue of bearing arms outside the home should not even be up for discussion. The intent was to have the right to bear arms wherever you are notwithstanding all the damn restriced areas that have been put into law since the 2nd amendment was enacted.

More lawyers' tricks about the definition of what "is is".

Bearing arms means to right to defend yourself, and would have been applicable both in and outside the home in our Forefathers' day. It was common for people to have weapons and use them for hunting and defense. Our Forefathers knew that slaves don't have weapons - they have no right of self defense. We have a right to defend ourselves, especially from the GOVERNMENT, and to CHANGE THAT GOVERNMENT, if need be. People shy away from that, but really....can anyone deny that the Founders saw the potential future need for this?

They are that dumb.

My rights don't stop at my front door.

No, silly people... It was a misspelling it should read the right to "bare" arms. Meaning shirt sleeves optional. It was Very unconventional. The humid summers of the New world tested The dress code of the day...

Disgusting

This is what lawyers do. Best

But they all have escort guards

Are you implying that your rights are endowed from a piece of paper? Better yet, what's a sheep like you doing on a site like this?

Bingo!

It should be totally clear these clowns will rule one day we do not have the right to take a crap.

Its funny you would even think about citing the federalist papers having clearly. never read them.

Okay, so this has not been defined YET? Let's see now, how many years has this been on the books?

"Depends on what the definition of what 'is' is".

The devil is the author of confusion. That's it - plain and simple.

I think this is typical liberal bullshit. It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is ring a bell? The definition of bear is to carry on ones person, the definition of 'shall not be infringed' isn't that obtuse. What it means is tat all Americans have the right to carry weapons wherever they go. Now granted , it should be up to an individual whether they allow it on their property, but in public the meaning is clear. The government is aware there is a clearly defined line drawn and they've been chiseling away at it for 100 years, and where gun rights are concerned the people will not bend any further.

Exactly and well put. We obviously can't just GIVE guns to people who will use them against others without cause, but a law abiding citzen has every right to own firearms.

No matter what the State says, you not only have the right to be able to defend yourself against those who would do you harm, but you have a DUTY to protect yourself and other innocent people. Initiating violence is not acceptable, but meeting force with force is the only way to deal with people who don't value human lives.

You also have the right to keep your government in check, and that is also your DUTY as a citizen. Rogue governments that enslave their people are nothing new, and history has told us time and time again that this is not only possible, but inevitable.

No rational person would ever hand their gun willingly to an attacker before the fight has even begun. You cannot allow the government to disarm you, because once you are weaponless they will no longer fear you. You need only to see the corruption and decadence of those in power to know that this day is fast approaching.

They want to restrict guns to your property only, then register them, then come confiscate them. History repeating itself.

Fuck them.

Thus this vaunted body has affirmed it does not have the institutional ability to read the English language.

[link to www.oxforddictionaries.com]

In every sense the word bear is used it conveys the sense of to CARRY

You can keep your firearms in your house AND you can affix them in some manner to your person and walk about; inside or outside your house.

Perhaps the appointment of the last non-judge member tipped the SC over the edge. In any case I expect them to "rule" just as their masters tell them to rule.

The cold hard reality IMO we must deal with is the SC will rule you do not have the right to defend yourself from government goons. These goons will have the finest FULLY AUTO weapons your taxes can buy. They will likely arrive at your house in one of the 30,000 30 ton Urban Tanks with 50 cal machine guns mounted on the roof "for protection of the SWAT teams" that DHS has distributed far and wide across the land.

This "government" has sold us so far out you need astronomical units to measure it.

this 'right to bear arms' nonsense just means WE DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT, so, "Why have government."

You don't need it.
You don't (then) need guns, because...
You don't have the incentive to PROTECT ANYTHING on a Free Planet - it's ours, and noone can take it away from 'any of us'.

Seems easy, more fun, and cheaper for everyone.

What would you do?
Thread: If THE PLANET was free, what would you do?

For the Supreme Court to ask clarification on what it means to "Bear Arms" per the Second Amendment

is like a heart surgeon asking where to cut for a bi-pass.

It's rather disturbing.

I'm a nice guy and now I'm saying they deserve to be hung.