# Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?



## emilynghiem

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of 
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to 
impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to 
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to 
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms, 
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt): 

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


----------



## Pogo

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...." 

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.


----------



## Kosh

Salon.com is a far left hack site. So one should understand that the far left wants only the criminals to have guns. Anything from a far left hack site should never be used for any type of "facts".

The second amendment is what it is, for the people to be armed. It was created in a time where there was people living in space areas that did not have protections like police and military. These people needed arms to defend their lands. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

During the war between Iraq and Iran, houses in Iraq were required to have a room specifically dedicated for arms to help drive out any invading force. This was done in the spirit of keeping Iranian forces out of the country, but these rooms existed in the Iraq war days. If the people did not want the US in their country they were supplied with arms to attack any invading force.

There are many cities that have strict gun control laws and have some of the highest murder rates. Even countries with strict gun control laws still have many problems with murder. Gun control laws only affect those that abide by the laws. Gun control laws will not stop anyone with the intent of doing harm.

For every new law that is created, a new potential criminal is created.

However just like J walking, if you do not enforce what is currently on the books, creating new ones will do no good. Just look at immigration.

Maybe you should have used this:

In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction (~1/5) the might of a militia:

*... Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.*

---snip---

*Military and militia[edit]*

During the ratification debate, many Americans feared that the federal government would become too powerful and too similar to the monarchy in Great Britain. Madison calculated while writing Federalist Paper 46 that the standing military, controlled by the federal government, should be kept under a maximum of 30,000 troops, enough to defend America against other nations but not enough to oppress the states. The states themselves, to protect themselves from the federal government from overpowering them with the threat of a standing army like Great Britain did when King George III sent his battalion to America, were allowed a total militia of 500,000 people. The purpose of the militia changed with the passing years as well. Instead of being there to protect the states from being too controlled by the federal government, the militia’s purpose now is to respond to natural disasters and protect individuals stuck in those situations.

Federalist No. 46 - Wikipedia


----------



## 1stRambo

Yo, Emily, the "Socialist Democrat Party" will never stop trying to take guns from the citizens, it`s only one of their many Agenda`s!!! They want total control of the people, without weapons, we`re totally screwed!!! Salon, it`s a subsidiary of the Socialist Democrat Party, simple!!!

"GTP"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Pogo said:


> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.


*
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
*
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).



*Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, 
*
Every other of the first 10 Amendments limits government to protect individual rights.
Why would the 2nd Amendment be needed to protect a state right?

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
_
The 10th seems to cover that.
If they meant militia only, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".....

changing people to militia would have made their intentions unmistakable.


----------



## jwoodie

A point which is frequently overlooked is that the Second Amendment was a prohibition against the Federal government interfering with a State's right to defend itself.  (At least prior to 1860.)


----------



## PredFan

1. It’s Salon.com
2. It’s already been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
3. Time to give more money to the NRA.


----------



## ding

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
Click to expand...


It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.



Thanks Pogo
I think it is because there are conditions that come with the responsibility for armed defense.
I think it is part of natural law that 
lawful use of force is based on defending the law not violating it.

This is similar to the First Amendment including both
freedom as in freedom of speech and free exercise of religion,
and peace/security as in the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
So this is another area where there is an inherent qualifier:
you can't take freedom of speech/press or free exercise of religion
"out of context" where it disrupts or causes a breach of the peace,
because the right of the people peaceably to assemble is included in the same context.

Likewise, if you take this further,
the right to bear arms cannot be abused to violate the
right of people to security in our persons houses and effects
which is another principle within the same Bill of Right.

So this means the use of arms can't be abused to violate other rights or laws
or else it conflicts with the very Constitutional principles it is part of.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to delineate the
rights of individuals that were otherwise not spelled out as were
the duties and powers given to collective Federal Govt in the body of the Constitution;
so taken together, all  these principles serve to CHECK and BALANCE each other. 

No part or principle including the Second Amendment can be taken out of
context to violate any other part or principle in the same Constitution including
the Bill of Rights that was added as an agreed Condition for ratifying the Constitution.


----------



## yiostheoy

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


Heller v. DC pretty much settled this.

Scalia went through an exhaustive study and write-up to point out that militias have nothing to do with it.

Of course Ginsberg and her fellow activist justices disagree.

It was a close split decision.


----------



## yiostheoy

Anytime the SCOTUS splits 5 to 4 on anything you can argue it until Hell freezes over.


----------



## LOki

If gun-control advocates didn't have arguments that rely upon disinformation and logical fallacy, they'd have no arguments at all.


----------



## emilynghiem

yiostheoy said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Heller v. DC pretty much settled this.
> 
> Scalia went through an exhaustive study and write-up to point out that militias have nothing to do with it.
> 
> Of course Ginsberg and her fellow activist justices disagree.
> 
> It was a close split decision.
Click to expand...


Dear yiostheoy
the reason liberals don't agree is if they don't believe in natural laws in the Constitution coming from God first as the default where govt doesn't create those rights but the Constitution reflects and expresses them.

both sides have their own default beliefs.

and govt including judges in courts  can't be abused to establish beliefs for the nation against the will and beliefs of dissenters who believe otherwise, and can't be forced to change or abandon their beliefs by govt coercion.

if it is equally wrong for courts to establish the political belief in the right to marriage or right to health care which violates beliefs of others, it is equally wrong to depend on courts to establish beliefs in gun rights that not all people follow or believe in either.

Sorry but there has to be a consensus if there is going to be a real agreement on what these laws mean, where BELIEFS are involved. for other matters that are secular and don't involve people's inherent beliefs, those can be agreed to give authority to courts and govt to settle. but not issues of beliefs, that obviously don't work that way.

it would violate the establishment clause where govt can neither prohibit nor establish religious belief or bias. with the gun rights and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, this has become a political religion, similar to beliefs that health care is a right or marriage is a right. so people will need to vote on a resolution that equally recognizes includes and protects the political beliefs on both sides, instead of favoring one over the other, if we expect to settle this issue.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
Click to expand...

Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?


----------



## Picaro

The original intent of the Constitution was to define limits of Federal power, and states had the powers to regulate themselves internally, hence gun control laws in many states, mostly raced based early on, due to fear of slave revolts and such events as the tax resistors in western PA Washington dealt with and Jefferson's enforcing his embargoes during his second term, etc.

This system has gradually broken down over the decades, with political hacks and corrupt Federal judges, particularly the Chase Court during Lincoln's illegal war, with judges gradually destroying the Bill Of Rights and Congress refusing to do its job and ceding power to other branches, to the point where the U.S, is essentially lawless and unable to govern itself any more. Patrick Moynihan pointed this out a long time ago. Most citizens of the U.S. just don't want to be responsible citizens any more, can't be bothered to care, either.

People who keep pretending the Constitution is still empowered are ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand. It's no longer the law of the land, hasn't been since the Civil War at best, some scholars say since Jefferson's Presidency. It's fantasy, with Constitutional law changing based purely on judicial whims and pet ideological beliefs and silly fads, not law or precedent, which is to be expected when the Judges are all just political hacks appointed for every reason *other* than patriotism and the Constitution's enforcement.

When you have such dysfunctional weirdness as neurotic, harmful sex fetishes and pop psycho-babble being politicized and taken seriously as the basis for 'civil rights' hoaxes and the like, you know the system of checks and balances is completely dead, and your 'citizens' are mentally retarded and regressive de-evolution is well along. Mindless self-indulgence isn't the same as freedom and respect for law, and having some 300,000,000 separate sets of laws tailored to every individual's whims is an impossibility only dumbasses and lunatics think is viable.

There is a very real difference between having an open mind and tolerance for other beliefs, and having a huge gaping hole in your head.


----------



## Picaro

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
Click to expand...


Not all beliefs are equal, or to be taken seriously as legitimate beliefs. Is some loon's belief in a 'right to marry my favorite puppy' to carry equal weight with anything else in national discourse and 'human rights'??? Seriously???


----------



## Picaro

The Supreme Court has been assuming powers for itself it doesn't have; forget about it, it's a joke and the system of checks and balances broke down over a hundred years ago.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
Click to expand...

That is not the point of our Second Amendment.  The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights.  That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench.  Only Congress may do that.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
Click to expand...


Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.


----------



## emilynghiem

Picaro said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all beliefs are equal, or to be taken seriously as legitimate beliefs. Is some loon's belief in a 'right to marry my favorite puppy' to carry equal weight with anything else in national discourse and 'human rights'??? Seriously???
Click to expand...


Dear Picaro
Marriage beliefs and "rituals" fall under free exercise of religion.
The limits are whether these impose harm that violates rights of others,
such as consent of children or welfare of animals, etc.

In the case of puppies, yes someone can have a ceremony to marry their puppy,
and there are cases of people leaving all their wealth to their pets. That is legal to write up such terms in the estate, and pay for an executor to carry out that will.

However, having "sex" with animals is against the law. That is violating a different law.

Similar to Catholic priests and Jehovah's Witness elders who have their own inhouse policies and private process for addressing infractions of religious rules, but CANNOT invoke that to justify failure to report abuse children which is a violation of criminal laws outside church authority, and requires reporting to govt authorities.

With the beliefs about gun laws and regulations, the liberals who believe in govt regulated state militias only are free to set up and follow this policy for themselves, but cannot impose their beliefs on people and states who believe and vote otherwise.

This is also similar to Catholic church policies, where some people believe you have to go through Catholic priests or churches to have valid marriages, but cannot impose this restriction on people of other beliefs.  The same way Lutheran and Protestant churches broke free from Catholic authority and taught liberation for people to govern themselves directly by scripture (instead of depending on Catholic priests to act as the middle man); a similar "reformation" movement and political evolution has been progressing where people are learning to govern themselves independently of government, and no longer relying on judges and courts to interpret laws for them. The Liberals still use the judicial authority as their "Pope" to establish interpretation of laws, but for Constitutionalists, these interpretations have to reflect the consent of the people in order to be valid. This reminds me of the Reformation where people began invoking authority of law directly, and were able to rebuke the priests and Catholic church to hold them to account. With the Constitution, the people are supposed to invoke this authority to hold the govt to account; instead of the other way, where judges "dictate" law for the people which is backwards!


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point of our Second Amendment.  The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights.  That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench.  Only Congress may do that.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
If you do not believe in natural laws and natural existing rights,
that is your choice of belief. But you cannot abuse govt to impose your
secular beliefs on other people who have equal right to respective beliefs,
the same as you do.

See my previous post above. You remind me of Catholics who believe that everything has to be done through the Catholic priests, the Catholic church and authorities in order to be valid. What about Muslims or Protestants, Buddhists or Hindus who don't believe in submitting to the Pope as their central authority.

However DP if we all AGREE on an interpretation, then YES the central govt can REFLECT a consensus of the people, and we can AGREE that is public policy for everyone.  Where we DISAGREE on beliefs, such as right to life applying to unborn children, or right to health care requiring everyone to go through federal govt,
these disagreements in beliefs CANNOT be imposed through central govt or it violates the First Amendment free exercise of religion by establishing one!

You remind me of right to life people who just believe their argument is just plain TRUTH so there is no "belief or choice" involved. They believe their way should be the law for all.

You don't like it when rightwing take their political or religious beliefs and abuse govt to impose that on you; so in this case, your political beliefs cannot be imposed through govt on people of other beliefs either! This is just to be fair, to protect people of one belief from infringement by other groups and beliefs that might otherwise abuse govt to establish their beliefs or biases in conflict with yours.

When the shoe is on the other foot, are you willing to back off?
Are you willing to respect the equal beliefs of others as you want for yourself?


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about; like usual, for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point of our Second Amendment.  The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights.  That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench.  Only Congress may do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> If you do not believe in natural laws and natural existing rights,
> that is your choice of belief. But you cannot abuse govt to impose your
> secular beliefs on other people who have equal right to respective beliefs,
> the same as you do.
> 
> See my previous post above. You remind me of Catholics who believe that everything has to be done through the Catholic priests, the Catholic church and authorities in order to be valid. What about Muslims or Protestants, Buddhists or Hindus who don't believe in submitting to the Pope as their central authority.
> 
> However DP if we all AGREE on an interpretation, then YES the central govt can REFLECT a consensus of the people, and we can AGREE that is public policy for everyone.  Where we DISAGREE on beliefs, such as right to life applying to unborn children, or right to health care requiring everyone to go through federal govt,
> these disagreements in beliefs CANNOT be imposed through central govt or it violates the First Amendment free exercise of religion by establishing one!
> 
> You remind me of right to life people who just believe their argument is just plain TRUTH so there is no "belief or choice" involved. They believe their way should be the law for all.
> 
> You don't like it when rightwing take their political or religious beliefs and abuse govt to impose that on you; so in this case, your political beliefs cannot be imposed through govt on people of other beliefs either! This is just to be fair, to protect people of one belief from infringement by other groups and beliefs that might otherwise abuse govt to establish their beliefs or biases in conflict with yours.
> 
> When the shoe is on the other foot, are you willing to back off?
> Are you willing to respect the equal beliefs of others as you want for yourself?
Click to expand...

Normally, I wouldn't waste too much time on this; but, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## TNHarley

There are many examples of intent. 
Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.


----------



## danielpalos

TNHarley said:


> There are many examples of intent.
> Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.


nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or Constitutional law.

The Intent and Purpose, is in the First clause not the Second clause.


----------



## PredFan

You need read no further then it was a Salon article.


----------



## PredFan

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about; like usual, for the right wing.
Click to expand...


Hey! I said "educate yourself then get back to us". Are you illiterate too?


----------



## PredFan

TNHarley said:


> There are many examples of intent.
> Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.



Daniel is both.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
Click to expand...

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

PredFan said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many examples of intent.
> Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is both.
Click to expand...

the right wing; masters of Projection.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

just right wing special pleading.  The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
Click to expand...

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.



danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia;...


Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.



danielpalos said:


> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.


Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
Click to expand...

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.



danielpalos said:


> You are either, well regulated or you are not.


Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..._". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is _dependent_ upon the main clause.
> 
> The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.



danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just right wing special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia;...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
Click to expand...

The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.


----------



## LOki

danielpalos said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No special pleading was submitted.
> 
> Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.
> 
> Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.
> 
> The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is expressed in the main, independent, and operative clause; which is obvious to anyone who understands the English language.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire sentence)repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.
Click to expand...

Okay, then the militia are also the people.  I'm a people.


----------



## sakinago

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.

First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.

IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.


----------



## BS Filter

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

LOki said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment is expressed in the main, independent, and operative clause; which is obvious to anyone who understands the English language.
> 
> Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.
> 
> Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire sentence)repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.
Click to expand...

No, it is not.


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then the militia are also the people.  I'm a people.
Click to expand...

Are you well regulated?


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.
> 
> Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then the militia are also the people.  I'm a people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you well regulated?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and so was George Mason.  Ever hear of him?


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then the militia are also the people.  I'm a people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and so was George Mason.  Ever hear of him?
Click to expand...

Mustered lately?


----------



## BS Filter

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The people.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, then the militia are also the people.  I'm a people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you well regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and so was George Mason.  Ever hear of him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mustered lately?
Click to expand...

Yep, and ketchuped,.


----------



## BS Filter

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## BS Filter

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
Click to expand...

So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?


----------



## BS Filter

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
Click to expand...

What's funny about their words?


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
Click to expand...

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.  

_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_.

Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
Click to expand...

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> 
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
Click to expand...

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
Click to expand...

Says you.  The intent and purpose is in every word of the Constitution.  You can't cherry pick the parts that fit your agenda and ignore the parts that don't.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
> - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...









Why do you insist on lying all of the time?  You have already been shown what the "well regulated" part meant.  Repeatedly.  Your constant spamming of this thread is becoming problematic.  Either present something new or refrain from more SPAM.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
Click to expand...







Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Click to expand...


Supply and regulation are not the same thing.


----------



## westwall

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Click to expand...







Back then they meant the same thing.  Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition.  Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned.  Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.

This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.


----------



## BULLDOG

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then they meant the same thing.  Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition.  Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned.  Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
> 
> This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
Click to expand...


Please go away. You present nothing of interest for me.


----------



## emilynghiem

sakinago said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.
> 
> First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
> 
> IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
Click to expand...

Dear sakinago 
While I agree with the traditional interpretation as more consistent with historical context and Constitutional meaning, I also acknowledge that opponents and dissenters have equal right to their beliefs, however contradictory or irrational, provided they keep these beliefs to themselves and dont impose on others. They have equal right to govern themselves under beliefs that health care is a right through govt and that arms are reserved for militia regulated by govt as well.

The problem then becomes imposing this belief through govt. But if we recognize this as a belief, then it cant be imposed or it violates Amendment One.

If we keep arguing back and forth, both sides claiming historic or judicial precedent as justification for imposing one belief or another, we risk losing our right to the interpretation we believe in.  If the only way that the liberals feel they can protect their right to their belief is to override the Constitution by abusing judicial or executive power, this invites if not necessitates such abuse! To prevent that, I argue it is better to recognize the liberal rights to their beliefs as a Political Religion, then they have free exercise without prohibition by govt and also the same laws prevent such political beliefs from being established by govt. 

Similar with LGBT beliefs, beliefs in health care and in marriage as a right. Acknowledging these as Political Beliefs protects them as part of free exercise of religion, while at the same time barring govt from establishing such beliefs by law. The protection is mutual!


----------



## westwall

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then they meant the same thing.  Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition.  Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned.  Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
> 
> This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please go away. You present nothing of interest for me.
Click to expand...








Of course not, you're a lying sack of poo.  But here is the actual, historical meaning for those who actually care to know.  

"The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."


1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you.  The intent and purpose is in every word of the Constitution.  You can't cherry pick the parts that fit your agenda and ignore the parts that don't.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law. 

I am not cherry picking.  The Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment, is in the first clause, not in the second clause.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on lying all of the time?  You have already been shown what the "well regulated" part meant.  Repeatedly.  Your constant spamming of this thread is becoming problematic.  Either present something new or refrain from more SPAM.
Click to expand...

I don't need to lie; unlike right wingers.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law and is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.

I have already explained, more than once, that "wellness of regulation" Must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not in the second clause.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then they meant the same thing.  Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition.  Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned.  Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
> 
> This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
Click to expand...

You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not in the second clause.
Click to expand...

LOL.  Whatever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
> *
> It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Click to expand...


When it was written, they were.

_The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. 
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm_

Shall not be infringed......


----------



## Darkwind

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point of our Second Amendment.  The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights.  That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench.  Only Congress may do that.
Click to expand...

Not that I think you'd ever come out of your little safe space and wrongheaded beliefs, but frankly; you don't know what your talking about.

Read this and then take a few years to reflect on your sins.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
Click to expand...


The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?


----------



## Pogo

LOki said:


> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.



"to make it clear"?

There's no such element in a Constitution.  A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period".  It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points.  It is not a debate.  There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a _direct assertion_.

And indeed, no other Amenment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.  The statements are direct and to the point:  "Congress* shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion... "; "*No soldier shall*, in time of peace, be quartered in any house....";  "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... *shall not be violated*..." and so on.  NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point.  The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc".  Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

Yet here we have the 2A  --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?  What for?  That should have already been done.  Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree.  Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally.  Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.

If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.  There's no other reason for it to be there.


----------



## danielpalos

Darkwind said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much, right wingers.  Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
> to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
> No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.
> 
> However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
> allows for liberals like  you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
> similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
> That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.
> 
> Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
> under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
> Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
> NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt.  And looking at the Second Amendment,
> it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.
> 
> Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
> You have  no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
> by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.
> 
> Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
> in keeping with equal protection of the laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the point of our Second Amendment.  The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.
> 
> Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights.  That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench.  Only Congress may do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I think you'd ever come out of your little safe space and wrongheaded beliefs, but frankly; you don't know what your talking about.
> 
> Read this and then take a few years to reflect on your sins.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
Click to expand...






Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
Click to expand...

What happens in Any conflict of laws?  

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.


----------



## LOki

Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "to make it clear"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Precisely.



Pogo said:


> There's no such element in a Constitution.  A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period".  It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points.  It is not a debate.  There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.


Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.

I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.

I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, "_ A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."_



Pogo said:


> And indeed, no other Amenment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.


That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.



Pogo said:


> The statements are direct and to the point:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house....";  "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on.  NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point.  The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.


Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.

There's just no fathoming what got your little panties all bunched up.



Pogo said:


> Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc".  Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.


You present this as a counter to which point that I made?

Can you be specific?

No?

Why don't you put your pecker away, mmmk?



Pogo said:


> Yet here we have the 2A  --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?


Oh. You're saying _I_ said this?

What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?



Pogo said:


> What for?


I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.



Pogo said:


> That should have already been done.  Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree.  Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally.  Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.


So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

Good.



Pogo said:


> If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.  There's no other reason for it to be there.


Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
Click to expand...


Good answer to a question I never asked.  If I could dodge like that I'd be an NFL running back.


----------



## Pogo

LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "to make it clear"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such element in a Constitution.  A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period".  It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points.  It is not a debate.  There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.
> 
> I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, "_ A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"." _
Click to expand...



Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess.  Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation.  I misoverestimated you.  Would you like to borrow my copy?




LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.
Click to expand...


*  No shit Sherlock*.  That's what I just noted.  The question is WHY they would do that.  A question that remains untouched.




LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statements are direct and to the point:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house....";  "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on.  NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point.  The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.
Click to expand...


Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?

No Jingles, _you're_ not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be _me._
I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose.  The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.

And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term.  All _prefatory _means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a_ preface_ (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.




LOki said:


> There's just no fathoming what got your little panties all bunched up.



"Panties"?    Hey I'm just watching you make pretzels.




LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc".  Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.
> 
> 
> 
> You present this as a counter to which point that I made?
> 
> Can you be specific?
Click to expand...


Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like.  That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first.  Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to.  NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.

Hence the question.  Untouched.




LOki said:


> Why don't you put your pecker away, mmmk?




Perhaps you should close USMB before you write these "notes to self" while surfing porn. Just an idea.






LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here we have the 2A  --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You're saying _I_ said this?
> 
> What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?
Click to expand...


There you go again ---  "me me me".  What are you, a singer?





LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What for?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.
Click to expand...


It's not a "story", Ice Cream Cone -- it's an analysis, leading to a question.  You know, the untouched one.  The one you can't handle.





LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That should have already been done.  Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree.  Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally.  Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.
> 
> 
> 
> So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.
> 
> Good.
Click to expand...


Good or not -- it's still not the question is it.





LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.  There's no other reason for it to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.
Click to expand...


What "contradiction" would that be, Hunior?

I don't know if it sets conditions or not, and if it does I'm not clear what they are.  That's why I put the question out as to what that clause's function is.  That's why I noted in my first post here that it's a train wreck of writing.  It *can't* be interpreted.  But have a go if you think you can handle it.  You know, instead of running away from it.





LOki said:


> Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.



Ipse dixit is fun when you have no reasoning.  I guess.

That about it now?  You done whining that I dared to pose a question that you can't answer?
Isn't that 'special'.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...







NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means.  I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land.  We just disagree on what it means.  I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means.  You don't.
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good answer to a question I never asked.  If I could dodge like that I'd be an NFL running back.
Click to expand...










Then I suggest you take a remedial English class because I did indeed answer your question.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.


----------



## LOki

Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "to make it clear"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such element in a Constitution.  A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period".  It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points.  It is not a debate.  There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.
> 
> I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess.
Click to expand...

Well then, there's just no explaining why you're so confused.



Pogo said:


> Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation.


Oh, I recognized it just fine, it was apparent that you didn't, however.



Pogo said:


> I misoverestimated you.  Would you like to borrow my copy?


Between you and I, I'm not the one confused by the existence of the Bill of Rights.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock.  That's what I just noted.  The question is WHY they would do that.  A question that remains untouched.
Click to expand...

What question? Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statements are direct and to the point:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house....";  "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on.  NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point.  The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?
Click to expand...

No. But you did blockquote my post, right? ... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address something you thought I said.

Dick.



Pogo said:


> No Jingles, you're not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be me.
> I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose.  The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.


Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term.  All prefatory means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a preface (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.


Well, as it turns out, the legal priority placed upon the preforatory clause is determined by it's grammatical dependency upon the main, independent clause of the Amendement.

And as far as the "question" is concerned, do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc".  Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.
> 
> 
> 
> You present this as a counter to which point that I made?
> 
> Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like.  That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first.  Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to.  NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.
Click to expand...

Your faulty presumption, in direct contradiction to all your discussion regarding "_...{being} argued in committees..._", is that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to present any kind of "justification" at all.



Pogo said:


> Hence the question.  Untouched.


Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here we have the 2A  --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You're saying I said this?
> 
> What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again ---  "me me me".  What are you, a singer?
Click to expand...

No. But you did blockquote my post... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address somethig you thought I said.

Dick.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What for?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a "story", Ice Cream Cone -- it's an analysis, leading to a question.  You know, the untouched one.  The one you can't handle.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That should have already been done.  Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree.  Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally.  Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.
> 
> 
> 
> So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good or not -- it's still not the question is it.
Click to expand...

No. It's the answer to your question.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.  There's no other reason for it to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "contradiction" would that be, Hunior?
Click to expand...

The contradiction where you suggest the right required a "justification" and "conditional" meets "shall not be infringed."

Rights do not require justification, and "conditional" is antithetical to "shall not be infringed."

It's really rather obvious, isn't it?



Pogo said:


> I don't know if it sets conditions or not, and if it does I'm not clear what they are.  That's why I put the question out as to what that clause's function is.  That's why I noted in my first post here that it's a train wreck of writing.  It can't be interpreted.  But have a go if you think you can handle it.  You know, instead of running away from it.


Well Mr. Then-it-must-be-intended-as-a-dependent-clause-setting-conditions-on-what-follows, you seem pretty certain that the prefatory clause must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.

Between us, it's pretty clear that I'm not confused about what you're driving at.

As far as your question is concerned, let point out that your question is answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

You're welcome.

Again.



Pogo said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ipse dixit is fun when you have no reasoning.  I guess.
Click to expand...

On what planet is pointing out that a self-contradicting assertion is logically invalid considered unfounded?

Your planet?



Pogo said:


> That about it now?  You done whining that I dared to pose a question that you can't answer?
> Isn't that 'special'.


Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.


----------



## xyz

1stRambo said:


> Yo, Emily, the "Socialist Democrat Party" will never stop trying to take guns from the citizens, it`s only one of their many Agenda`s!!! They want total control of the people, without weapons, we`re totally screwed!!! Salon, it`s a subsidiary of the Socialist Democrat Party, simple!!!
> 
> "GTP"
> View attachment 166443


It is highly unlikely they would be able to, at most they might stop certain types of guns from being sold and have stricter background checks.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only on a planet where English is a fifth language.  On this planet it is the second clause that matters.  That's how the English language works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
Click to expand...







The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
Click to expand...

So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.  

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
Click to expand...

Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?


----------



## miketx

Pogo said:


> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.


Another falsehood from the regressive left.


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.
> 
> 
> 
> Another falsehood from the regressive left.
> 
> View attachment 172762
Click to expand...

Right wing indoctrination?

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I disagree.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions.  That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional".  I see where you're coming from now.


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions.  That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional".  I see where you're coming from now.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions.  That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional".  I see where you're coming from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming the US Constitution doesn't apply to me?


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in both the US Constitution and state Constitutions.  That's why we have a Supreme Court, to determine what is "Constitutional".  I see where you're coming from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured by State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming the US Constitution doesn't apply to me?
Click to expand...

It does in federal venues.


----------



## miketx

My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.


Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.


----------



## miketx

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.
Click to expand...

Come get them.


----------



## danielpalos

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> My final thought on this recurring attack on our rights is, Come get them scum bags.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; seems like a job for bazookaniers or grenadiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come get them.
Click to expand...

why bother.  I don't need the practice.


----------



## miketx

Anyone paying attention can tell when they have hit a nerve with one of the lying regressive scumbags, when they quote your posts one after another for a time. lol


----------



## Pogo

LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "to make it clear"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such element in a Constitution.  A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period".  It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points.  It is not a debate.  There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.
> 
> I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, there's just no explaining why you're so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I recognized it just fine, it was apparent that you didn't, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I misoverestimated you.  Would you like to borrow my copy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Between you and I, I'm not the one confused by the existence of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock.  That's what I just noted.  The question is WHY they would do that.  A question that remains untouched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question? Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?
> 
> If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statements are direct and to the point:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house....";  "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on.  NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point.  The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. But you did blockquote my post, right? ... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address something you thought I said.
> 
> Dick.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Jingles, you're not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be me.
> I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose.  The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?
> 
> If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Again.
Click to expand...


Yyyyyyeah unfortunately that doesn't follow.  You can't just slap together two disparate thoughts and then point to them claiming one flows from the other when it obviously does not. There's no way you can bang that clause into that meaning.  It says nothing about comparisons between the people and federal soldiers.  It makes no reference to federal soldiers whatsoever.  And if it could mean that, your specious interpretation would mean I have the right to own tanks, bazookas, grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, Sirin gas and nuclear bombs.

Don't feel bad --- it's a question none of us can answer because we haven't enough to start with.  It's a phrase that never explains itself.  And if it can be explained, the leap you just made with no bridge --- ain't it.







LOki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term.  All prefatory means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a preface (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as it turns out, the legal priority placed upon the preforatory clause is determined by it's grammatical dependency upon the main, independent clause of the Amendement.
> 
> And as far as the "question" is concerned, do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?
> 
> If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc".  Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You present this as a counter to which point that I made?
> 
> Can you be specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like.  That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first.  Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to.  NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faulty presumption, in direct contradiction to all your discussion regarding "_...{being} argued in committees..._", is that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to present any kind of "justification" at all.
Click to expand...


That appears to possibly be its purpose, although as noted from the outset, there's no reason at all to do that.  But dismissing that, what other purpose can the clause have?  The only other function it _can _have is to set some kind of qualification/limitation on what follows it.  Unfortunately it doesn't detail what that intention might be, which is why I describe it as a train wreck.  It's fatally vague.

After this point you went into Pee Wee Herman mode repeating the same fallacious leap over and over and over and over and over and over and over, so I shitcanned it.  I understood the first time that you had no answer --- not necessary to overmake the point.

I'm not in the habit of posing questions that HAVE answers.  That's the point of posing them.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.
> 
> That _still _leaves the question open --- what then is the _purpose _of the first clause?  Why does it exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Kind of an ironic post in that, according to that same English language, "Progressives" faded out a century ago.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel:  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
> 
> Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows.  Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis.  No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll".  No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
> 
> It's just odd.  Looks grossly unfinished.


The problem isn’t so much the wording but that it’s a ‘standalone’ Amendment to begin with.

The wording makes sense when included in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 12 of the Constitution:

_The Congress shall have Power_

_To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [where 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;_

Article II, Section 8 prohibits the establishment of a permanent National standing army, limiting funding for an army to two years. When no such funding is authorized – and no Federal army exists – the Nation would be protected by the state militias, who would provide the first defense against an invading force.

In order to ensure the militia were prepared to defend the Nation, residents of the states are afforded the right to arm themselves.

This is why the _Heller_ Court recognized an individual right to possess a firearm, unrelated to militia service, the state militia having become an anachronism.


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LOki said:


> If gun-control advocates didn't have arguments that rely upon disinformation and logical fallacy, they'd have no arguments at all.


This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Second Amendment jurisprudence itself authorizes the enactment of firearm regulatory measures:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Those who advocate for gun control measures that comport with the Second Amendment – such as the measures noted in _Heller _– are not predicating their advocacy on disinformation and logical fallacies, but on settled, accepted Constitutional case law.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that firearms be subject to government regulation, as no right is in fact ‘unlimited.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Picaro said:


> The Supreme Court has been assuming powers for itself it doesn't have; forget about it, it's a joke and the system of checks and balances broke down over a hundred years ago.


Nonsense.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, and to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sakinago said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.
> 
> First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
> 
> IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Again, the Constitution prohibited the establishment of a National army, which is why its funding was limited to two years.

The states’ militia would defend the Nation until a Federal army could be mobilized.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.
> 
> First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
> 
> IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear sakinago
> While I agree with the traditional interpretation as more consistent with historical context and Constitutional meaning, I also acknowledge that opponents and dissenters have equal right to their beliefs, however contradictory or irrational, provided they keep these beliefs to themselves and dont impose on others. They have equal right to govern themselves under beliefs that health care is a right through govt and that arms are reserved for militia regulated by govt as well.
> 
> The problem then becomes imposing this belief through govt. But if we recognize this as a belief, then it cant be imposed or it violates Amendment One.
> 
> If we keep arguing back and forth, both sides claiming historic or judicial precedent as justification for imposing one belief or another, we risk losing our right to the interpretation we believe in.  If the only way that the liberals feel they can protect their right to their belief is to override the Constitution by abusing judicial or executive power, this invites if not necessitates such abuse! To prevent that, I argue it is better to recognize the liberal rights to their beliefs as a Political Religion, then they have free exercise without prohibition by govt and also the same laws prevent such political beliefs from being established by govt.
> 
> Similar with LGBT beliefs, beliefs in health care and in marriage as a right. Acknowledging these as Political Beliefs protects them as part of free exercise of religion, while at the same time barring govt from establishing such beliefs by law. The protection is mutual!
Click to expand...

No one is seeking to ‘impose belief through government’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The government passes laws.

Those laws must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Laws that fail to do so are invalidated by the courts.

That’s it – no ‘beliefs’ being ‘imposed.’


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order.  No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in Any conflict of laws?
> 
> Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE may be infringed upon.  That's the whole point.  Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion.  The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of an ironic post in that, according to that same English language, "Progressives" faded out a century ago.
Click to expand...







No, they just rebranded and slunk back in.  Like they always do.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that.  According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong.  Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind.  Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...







Incorrect.  The COTUS codifies them quite plainly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.

Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.

Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.

Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.

Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.

Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.

More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.
> 
> Judicial activism, is simply that.
> 
> The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming the second claus isn't there.  It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight.  I think it's called "indoctrination".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I have the right to own guns.  I'm part of "the people" as you claim.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The COTUS codifies them quite plainly.
Click to expand...

Where?


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


The People are the militia.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.










You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

What’s both telling and amusing, of course, is that conservatives have come to loath _Heller_, and have come to feel ‘betrayed’ by Scalia.

That’s particularly the case with rightwing extremists who incorrectly believe that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ and that government has no authority to place restrictions on firearms, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

So the premise of the linked article in the OP is essentially correct: it was the original understanding and intent of the Framers to place limits on the possession of firearms, that the Second Amendment right “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”_ ibid_


----------



## Weatherman2020

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).


I don't know what's funnier. The premise of the OP or you thinking Salon is a reputable source.


----------



## Weatherman2020

All guns should be confiscated so Trump can solidify his dictatorship.


----------



## sakinago

emilynghiem said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.
> 
> First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
> 
> IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear sakinago
> While I agree with the traditional interpretation as more consistent with historical context and Constitutional meaning, I also acknowledge that opponents and dissenters have equal right to their beliefs, however contradictory or irrational, provided they keep these beliefs to themselves and dont impose on others. They have equal right to govern themselves under beliefs that health care is a right through govt and that arms are reserved for militia regulated by govt as well.
> 
> The problem then becomes imposing this belief through govt. But if we recognize this as a belief, then it cant be imposed or it violates Amendment One.
> 
> If we keep arguing back and forth, both sides claiming historic or judicial precedent as justification for imposing one belief or another, we risk losing our right to the interpretation we believe in.  If the only way that the liberals feel they can protect their right to their belief is to override the Constitution by abusing judicial or executive power, this invites if not necessitates such abuse! To prevent that, I argue it is better to recognize the liberal rights to their beliefs as a Political Religion, then they have free exercise without prohibition by govt and also the same laws prevent such political beliefs from being established by govt.
> 
> Similar with LGBT beliefs, beliefs in health care and in marriage as a right. Acknowledging these as Political Beliefs protects them as part of free exercise of religion, while at the same time barring govt from establishing such beliefs by law. The protection is mutual!
Click to expand...

Well this is the problem with post-modernism thinking, that there are an infinite number of interpretations of the world/theory/text/etc, which is kind of true, and therefore no interpretation should be given priority over another and by doing that you're playing into a power/dominance hierarchy and that's a bad thing...which is completely false. Its false because there's a narrow window of interpretations that will effect beliefs which will in turn effect actions, and having those actions lead to success in life. I could interpret that the stove will make a good hand rest, but that's not going to be true every time for obvious reasons. The idea of a "dominance hierarchy" being a force of "bad' is also false, because there isn't a dominance hierarchy, its really a competence hierarchy. In chimps its not necessarily the biggest, meanest, strongest chimp that's the alpha male, it does happen, but if that chimp is brutal to the other chimps, doesn't socialize well, or do things like reciprocate in grooming, what will happen is a couple of beta chimps will get together and brutally kill the tyrannical chimp. Whats a more stable chimp tribe is an alpha male that's very good at socializing, takes care of the young, etc. Theres still a clear hierarchy there, but the tribe is very much better off, because the alpha chimp is playing by a set of mutually agreed upon rules among chimps. To say the entire hierarchy structure itself bad is also false, and its false because its such a integral part of not only our humanity, but also animal life. The hierarchy structure in animals has been around longer than the trees have been around, literally. Its how we successfully learn to socialize amongst each other, and if you socialize successfully it has tremendous positive effects on our brain chemistry and make up. If not, it has very bad effects on our brain chemistry and make up. Its such a vital part to us.  

So it is important to stand up against post modernism, because it leads to very dark and bad places in humanity. The problems we are seeing in our society, things like the rise of Antifa, the social constraint on free speech, the lack of rhetoric (not in the political term sense, but the liberal art of rhetoric and reason), the echo chambers, etc, is a direct result of the philosophies of the humanities being dominated by post-modernism in our universities. Post-modernism leads into tyranny because it fails to recognize that the competence hierarchy is so imbedded in us, and that the post modernist are still playing into it even thought they claim to be against it, and the play into it in a form divorced from the rules we evolutionarily agree to play by that lead to good results. Its the "Gods of the Copybook Headings" poem by Rudyard Kipling, if you haven't read it, read it now, one of the most profound poems out there. Post modernism is the tyrannical alpha chimp, that requires a very brutal battle to unseat. Its why so many college students/millennials are against the true "liberal" ideas like diversity of thought, marketplace of ideas, free speech, etc. Fighting against post modernism, is the fight against tyranny.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...






The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
Click to expand...

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...






Wrong dumbass.  It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious.  Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot.  Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.

That would be you...


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Second Amendment recognizes a collective right or individual right is a distinction without a difference.
> 
> Related or unrelated to militia service, an individual right remains necessary for a citizen to either defend his Nation as a member of his state’s militia or to defend himself from crime as an individual.
> 
> Advocates of the collective right interpretation perceived it as a means by which to justify more restrictive firearm regulation – in the case of _Heller_ an outright prohibition of the possession of handguns.
> 
> Absent the relevance of state militias in the Era of the modern military/industrial complex, they argued, absent too would be the need for individuals to possess firearms, and thus absent that right.
> 
> Consequently, Scalia was compelled to contrive an individual right justification.
> 
> Scalia first engages in a tedious, protracted, and ultimately pointless analysis of the wording the Second Amendment itself – an analysis far from compelling.
> 
> More compelling is Scalia’s review of laws, measures, and legal precedent recognizing a right to self-defense, and an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> Last, Scalia determines that because handguns are the overwhelming means by which Americans seek to defend themselves, to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.
> 
> It was therefore the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, that those rights are in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute,’ and that government has the authority to place restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass.  It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious.  Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot.  Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.
> 
> That would be you...
Click to expand...

Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.

*“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”*
— George Mason


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You silly people crack me up.  There was no need to "contrive" an individual Right component.  It is EXPLICIT in the wording you blithering fool.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass.  It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious.  Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot.  Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.
> 
> That would be you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.
> 
> *“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”*
> — George Mason
Click to expand...







Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE.  Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass.  It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious.  Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot.  Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.
> 
> That would be you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.
> 
> *“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”*
> — George Mason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE.  Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.
Click to expand...


lol.  only in right wing legal fantasy.

_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.
_
The Intent and Purpose of the second clause, is in the first clause.  Be Patriotic.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE", not the right of the government.  Now piss off.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.
> 
> The _People_ are the _Militia_. The wording says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary, not the unorganized militia and Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumbass.  It's why no one takes you and your ilk serious.  Numerous Courts have recognized it is an individual Right even when there was significant pressure placed upon them to find otherwise, and the English language says you're an idiot.  Only anti gun authoritarians have to resort to twisting language to try and support their idiocy.
> 
> That would be you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all the right wing has, not Any form of better solution at lower cost.
> 
> *“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”*
> — George Mason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the WHOLE PEOPLE.  Not the government, or any FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  Now go twist your head around a logic fallacy again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  only in right wing legal fantasy.
> 
> _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.
> _
> The Intent and Purpose of the second clause, is in the first clause.  Be Patriotic.
Click to expand...







Patriotism has nothing to do with the English language, nor the intent of the 2nd which was to ensure the ability of the American People the ability to remove an illegitimate government, which the Founders knew would eventually happen because they were way smarter than you.

"As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.* Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."*



The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control
> 
> Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.
> 
> My question to liberal believers in state militias only:
> 
> If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
> such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
> why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
> applying to individual rights?
> 
> Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
> then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?
> 
> True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
> as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
> all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
> and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
> impose on THEIR  political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
> protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
> get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
> people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!
> 
> BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
> 1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
> I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
> Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
> independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
> state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
> you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
> clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
> form of govt):
> 
> 2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
> similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
> to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
> again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.
> 
> 3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
> as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
> use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
> This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
> by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.
> 
> If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
> who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
> ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
> with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.
> 
> I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
> by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
> laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
> who consent to be under that policy and process.
> 
> By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
> expected of  govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
> but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).
> 
> 
> 
> The Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.
> 
> First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
> 
> IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Again, the Constitution prohibited the establishment of a National army, which is why its funding was limited to two years.
> 
> The states’ militia would defend the Nation until a Federal army could be mobilized.
Click to expand...

What was wrong about what I said?


----------



## regent

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
Click to expand...

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the fantastical right wing Because, it would have to be a Constitution unto itself, instead of merely a Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## BS Filter

regent said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> 
> 
> it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
> 
> _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_.
> 
> Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots.  Why are their words humorous to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes
Click to expand...

I agree.  However, whatever the USSC says doesn't change the words of our founding fathers.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Ok let's play out this scenario, let's take guns from everyone. New presidential directive, everyone must surrender their guns immediately. 

So, all the law abiding citizens load up all of their firearms and takes them to the local police station. 

Now, do you feel safer?


----------



## danielpalos

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok let's play out this scenario, let's take guns from everyone. New presidential directive, everyone must surrender their guns immediately.
> 
> So, all the law abiding citizens load up all of their firearms and takes them to the local police station.
> 
> Now, do you feel safer?


Maybe, if all criminals who use a gun now, face the death penalty.


----------

