# 2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning



## capego

_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._


"a free State" = not a tyranny
"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
"right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

*Frivolous Arguments*
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

capego said:


> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.


Not the domestic government. That is a myth.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
Click to expand...

Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.


----------



## capego

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the domestic government. That is a myth.
Click to expand...


Your point is meaningless.  The right is intended to prevent tyranny, not specifically from within or without.  That tyranny can arise from within only means the "that is a myth" is wholly ignorant.


----------



## capego

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
Click to expand...

There are not a million troops in the Army or Marine Corps combined and even adding the air force and Navy you only barely break a million. If just 3 percent of the population rebels that is over 9 million people.


----------



## capego

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is not welcome on this thread.  Go away.  You don't understand guerilla warfare and apparently you don't understand that the US military would include militia members who would also rebel.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

capego said:


> Your point is meaningless


It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.


----------



## IsaacNewton

capego said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
Click to expand...


So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?


----------



## Natural Citizen

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em. 

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

capego said:


> You don't understand guerilla warfare


I of course do understand that it can be defeated with sheer jumbers and firepower. We would have crushed Vietnam, for instance, if we had the will. But, we did not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
Click to expand...

Good idea! You can be my official bullet-stopper.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

capego said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
Click to expand...

It's ok we can protect him fro Adolph Trump


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.
  When the truth is just the opposite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good idea! You can be my official bullet-stopper.
Click to expand...

Great but my plan is already set Asymmetric warfare


----------



## Crepitus

capego said:


> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu


Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.
> When the truth is just the opposite.


They call Trump Hitler but how could they fight against him? lol


----------



## capego

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
Click to expand...


Do I have to restrict my post sizes to one sentence to fit into your head?  After telling you the point was meaningless, I went on to tell you why.  If you are not contending against the specifics of my reasoning, there is no reason to continue talking to you and you are trolling my thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.


Well that was irrelevant and stupid....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Crepitus said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

capego said:


> If you are not contending against the specifics of my reasoning, there is no reason to continue talking to you a


Then piss off. This is a public forum and I will make my points as I choose. If they are too much for you to bear, then block me.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was irrelevant and stupid....
Click to expand...


     Totally relevant.


----------



## Darkwind

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
Click to expand...

Meaningless?   At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.

It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.  

In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
Click to expand...

Why didn't Washington call for the repeal of the second amendment after the whiskey rebellion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Darkwind said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless?   At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.
> 
> It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.
> 
> In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.
> 
> We fight for liberty -- win or lose.
Click to expand...

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Darkwind said:


> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would


Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told.


And the brilliant men Leading the military know Trump is a moron and would not accept idiot orders from him.


----------



## capego

Natural Citizen said:


> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.



The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such. 
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"


----------



## IsaacNewton

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
Click to expand...


So everyone can watch you die first? lol


----------



## Darkwind

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
Click to expand...

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.


----------



## Darkwind

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless?   At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.
> 
> It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.
> 
> In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.
> 
> We fight for liberty -- win or lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.
Click to expand...

Not really.


----------



## Darkwind

I'm wondering if any of you understand that our military does not swear oaths to the President but to the Constitution?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told.
> 
> 
> 
> And the brilliant men Leading the military know Trump is a moron and would not accept idiot orders from him.
Click to expand...

Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking officers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Darkwind said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless?   At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.
> 
> It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.
> 
> In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.
> 
> We fight for liberty -- win or lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
Click to expand...

There is enough civilians that would prevent a coup against him


----------



## Crepitus

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 202890
Click to expand...

Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.

I have to assume that means you are stumped.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Darkwind said:


> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world,


No mitia would defeat the us military, in force. Stop being absurd. You discredit yourself with this nonsense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IsaacNewton said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone can watch you die first? lol
Click to expand...

Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol


----------



## Darkwind

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.
> 
> So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas.  In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.
> 
> So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless?   At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.
> 
> It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.
> 
> In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.
> 
> We fight for liberty -- win or lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is enough civilians that would prevent a coup against him
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a coup if he ursurped powers not given to his office.
This isn't about Trump.  It is about the people and their right to defend themselves from any tyrannical government.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking office


He would not have to do so,for they would quit. And, should Trump then replace them with incompetent bootlickers, the integrity of the mitary would dissolve.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Crepitus said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 202890
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.
> 
> I have to assume that means you are stumped.
Click to expand...

No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Darkwind said:


> It is about the people and their right to defend


Which is a separate discussion from the second amendment, as that was the snot it's intent or meaning. So you have no constitutional providence here, and you are forced to support your belief using your own arguments instead of deferring.


----------



## IsaacNewton

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone can watch you die first? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol
Click to expand...


Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking office
> 
> 
> 
> He would not have to do so,for they would quit. And, should Trump then replace them with incompetent bootlickers, the integrity of the mitary would dissolve.
Click to expand...

Sure and replace with his choice minions


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> push for repeal of the second amendment


Who gives a shit about that? We could literally ban all guns except for muzzle loader, then continue to guaranatee the right of everyone to own one, and the right of everyone to bear arms would still be in place.

The repeal tack is a red herring.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sure and replace with his choice minions


Who would, no doubt, be incompetent and stupid, by comparison.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IsaacNewton said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone can watch you die first? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.
Click to expand...

oh the last retort of a failed internet argument internet tough guy.
If that makes you sleep better snowflake.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and replace with his choice minions
> 
> 
> 
> Who would, no doubt, be incompetent and stupid, by comparison.
Click to expand...

How do you know?


----------



## IsaacNewton

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone can watch you die first? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh the last retort of a failed internet argument internet tough guy.
> If that makes you sleep better snowflake.
Click to expand...


Aww, find your safe space snowflake and take your blanky. Sponebob is on soon.


----------



## Crepitus

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 202890
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.
> 
> I have to assume that means you are stumped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
> If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.
Click to expand...

Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?

It's nice to have a new fan.

I said nothing about repealing the 2nd.  I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How do you know?


Simple. First, Trump is incompetent and stupid and would not appoint t replacements based on merit or ability, but rather on loyalty.

Second, this would certainly rule out those with merit and competence, as anyone in possession of those qualities would not remain loyal to such idiocy. so


----------



## capego

Darkwind said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. First, Trump is incompetent and stupid and would not appoint t replacements based on merit or ability, but rather on loyalty.
> 
> Second, this would certainly rule out those with merit and competence, as anyone in possession of those qualities would not remain loyal to such idiocy. so
Click to expand...

Trump incompetent? That's hilarious he's beating the crap out of all those self-proclaimed smart people.  He's been doing it since 2016


----------



## bigrebnc1775

capego said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
Click to expand...

Remember Katrina? Several soldiers were video saying they would draw down on Americans and gun confiscation did happen during that time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Crepitus said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 202890
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.
> 
> I have to assume that means you are stumped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
> If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?
> 
> It's nice to have a new fan.
> 
> I said nothing about repealing the 2nd.  I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.
Click to expand...

Fan? I have a couple in tthe ceiling that moves hot air are you saying you want to be my fan?


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the domestic government. That is a myth.
Click to expand...






The Oath to every Public Official has this phrase, "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign, AND DOMESTIC.  So, yes, the Founders were every bit as concerned about a illegitimate government, as they were about an invader.


----------



## westwall

IsaacNewton said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...








They already do.  Not the nukes, but the tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers.  The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was the first field artillery unit in the US and it was PRIVATE.


----------



## westwall

Crepitus said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
Click to expand...






No, it isn't.  That is the ORIGINAL interpretation.  Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era.  Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks.  Don't ya think?


----------



## Crepitus

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 202890
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.
> 
> I have to assume that means you are stumped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
> If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?
> 
> It's nice to have a new fan.
> 
> I said nothing about repealing the 2nd.  I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fan? I have a couple in tthe ceiling that moves hot air are you saying you want to be my fan?
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Conservatives are really bad at come-backs.


----------



## Crepitus

westwall said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  That is the ORIGINAL interpretation.  Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era.  Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks.  Don't ya think?
Click to expand...

Uh huh, sure
  And you were there to ask the framers what their original meaning was?


----------



## Darkwind

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world,
> 
> 
> 
> No mitia would defeat the us military, in force. Stop being absurd. You discredit yourself with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Do you comprehend what you read at all?

The US military would NOT be in play


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about the people and their right to defend
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a separate discussion from the second amendment, as that was the snot it's intent or meaning. So you have no constitutional providence here, and you are forced to support your belief using your own arguments instead of deferring.
Click to expand...

What?  The entire purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government.


----------



## Darkwind

capego said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IsaacNewton said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

They already can with the right permit.


----------



## westwall

Crepitus said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah.  You know that's a recent interpretation right?  Less than a decade old in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  That is the ORIGINAL interpretation.  Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era.  Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks.  Don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh, sure
> And you were there to ask the framers what their original meaning was?
Click to expand...






No, I wasn't, but thankfully they were REALLLY well educated, and they wrote TONS of letters, and you know what, when you read their correspondences you get the idea really damned quick that they feared a illegitimate government even more than a foreign invader.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"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

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


And on and on and on.  Your problem is you are not well read, unlike the majority of us here.  Furthermore you choose to remain uneducated.  That provides us with shiploads of ammunition to point out your errors._


----------



## capego

Darkwind said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
Click to expand...


You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?


----------



## Darkwind

capego said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
Click to expand...

I think you're the one missing the point.  I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee.  They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The military will not be a problem if ever the day comes that we must actually exercise that failsafe.

You are free to disagree of course.  However, until you have served,  you won't get it, and cite a few examples where the rights of the citizenry were violated does not equate to a military that will take over the country or support a tyranny.

Its poor thinking at its finest.

I respectfully disagree.


----------



## capego

Darkwind said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're the one missing the point.  I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee.  They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The military will not be a problem if ever the day comes that we must actually exercise that failsafe.
> 
> You are free to disagree of course.  However, until you have served,  you won't get it, and cite a few examples where the rights of the citizenry were violated does not equate to a military that will take over the country or support a tyranny.
> 
> Its poor thinking at its finest.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...


"I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee."
I trust members of the US Armed forces far more than civilian government employees too, but I don't see what this has to do with anything.  Please consider that you are emotionally attached to the military through trauma and it seems to be affecting your ability to understand.

"They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights"
Let's say I have a very broad experience with military members and I have found this not to be the case.  But, excluding each of our experiences, in that it is the duty of military members to *uphold* and defend the constitution, and that the constitution is being and has been violated in the very apparent 2nd amendment infringements for a very long time with no military interventions indicates my point exactly : you can't trust the military to uphold the constitution.

Further, it seems you are awaiting tyranny to announce itself.  Please go read Tragedy and Hope and understand that is the minimum level of sophistication you must protect against.

There is another point I will make for others who might read this.  A police force that operates normally but also protects a criminal violent mob enables that mob.


----------



## miketx

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


veitnam
afganistan
cambodia

your lie has been proven wrong many times over traitor.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu


Wrong.

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the ‘overthrow’ of a lawfully, Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people retain the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not through ‘force of arms.’

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Constitution that identifies the ‘criteria of tyranny,’ there are no Constitutional ‘tripwires’ that warrant disregarding the will of the people or ‘authorizing’ the overthrow of a duly elected government.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is as determined by the _Heller_ Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny.


----------



## pismoe

interesting to me are the Military Veterans or Retired government men or 'kings' men or Public Servants that are gun controllers .   These include Retired Generals , Admirals , and Old guys with Veteran stitched on their baseball cap and current Commander / Astronauts Mark Kelly .   And other Retired on taxpayer money like retired 'CIA' Chief Micheal Hayden .  Seems that they didn't learn Gun Rights too well in the Military or in Public Service .  ---  Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords  ---   i think this link is interesting .  I think that Retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL mentioned in my link doesn't like Americans having semi auto AR15 Rifles .


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the domestic government. That is a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is meaningless.  The right is intended to prevent tyranny, not specifically from within or without.  That tyranny can arise from within only means the "that is a myth" is wholly ignorant.
Click to expand...

What constitutes ‘tyranny’ – absent consensus the notion is meaningless.

What some might perceive to be ‘tyranny’ is in fact not.

The right’s ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as pathetic as it is wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
Click to expand...

And the thread’s premise is just as wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is not welcome on this thread.  Go away.  You don't understand guerilla warfare and apparently you don't understand that the US military would include militia members who would also rebel.
Click to expand...

You’re in no position to accuse others of ‘ignorance,’ given the ignorance you’ve exhibited in this thread.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
Click to expand...

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.


----------



## pismoe

---   here is what veteran and retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL has to say about the AR 15 ,   ---   Gen. McChrystal: Assault rifles are for battlefields, not schools  ---   And please see my post number 73 for some interesting info on Veterans that are working to disarm Americans .  And of course , no sane person thinks that the AR15 should be used to shoot up schools .


----------



## capego

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the ‘overthrow’ of a lawfully, Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.
> 
> The people retain the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not through ‘force of arms.’
> 
> There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Constitution that identifies the ‘criteria of tyranny,’ there are no Constitutional ‘tripwires’ that warrant disregarding the will of the people or ‘authorizing’ the overthrow of a duly elected government.
> 
> The meaning of the Second Amendment is as determined by the _Heller_ Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny.
Click to expand...


"authorizes the 'overthrow'" .  That is comical and speaks to your background.

"The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First." Who said it did?  You've created a strawman.

'tripwires'  are in the form of the actions of rebellion by militias who judge there to be   tyranny in some aspect.  For example, the Bundy case.  But, given your background, you'd probably want to see the constitution say "when the government crosses line x, then you can ..."

"_Heller_ Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny."
This misinterpretation tells me you are a rather dangerous troll who operates with misconstruction and lies.

From the court itself:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

If anything, the right to bear arms apart from a militia is guaranteed, but the right to form a militia is implied.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
Click to expand...

And arguing that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government absent the consent of the people and consensus as to what constitutes tyranny is ignorant, reckless, and irresponsible.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.

All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.

The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> interesting to me are the Military Veterans or Retired government men or 'kings' men or Public Servants that are gun controllers .   These include Retired Generals , Admirals , and Old guys with Veteran stitched on their baseball cap and current Commander / Astronauts Mark Kelly .   And other Retired on taxpayer money like retired 'CIA' Chief Micheal Hayden .  Seems that they didn't learn Gun Rights too well in the Military or in Public Service .  ---  Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords  ---   i think this link is interesting .  I think that Retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL mentioned in my link doesn't like Americans having semi auto AR15 Rifles .


---------------------------   check it out , i realize that these anti gun Generals , Veterans use their Status as Veterans to influence and to be experts telling Americans what they can or can't or shouldn't own .   They are government or kings men working against Americans RIGHTS .


----------



## capego

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
Click to expand...



You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison? 

The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.


----------



## capego

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
Click to expand...


You appear to fail to understand law.  Law is not up for reinterpretation, even if by the supreme court.  And, in particular, the 2nd amendment requires no interpretation - it is as plain as day.  There was no special use of the word "infringement".  All laws restricting the bearing of arms are infringements to that right and are in violation of the bill of rights.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.



Place holder. I'm tired and it's bed time but I want to address this when I log back on.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The irony and stupidity of the thread premise, of course, is the fact that state governments have shown the greater propensity for tyranny, as opposed to the Federal government.

Indeed, the greater likelihood of tyranny manifest among state governments, which will soon be seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American citizens who reside in those states.


----------



## capego

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The irony and stupidity of the thread premise, of course, is the fact that state governments have shown the greater propensity for tyranny, as opposed to the Federal government.
> 
> Indeed, the greater likelihood of tyranny manifest among state governments, which will soon be seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American citizens who reside in those states.



That people should have the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the bill of rights is "ironic" and "stupid"?  Go away you statist troll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
Click to expand...

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
*Opinion of the Court*
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.


----------



## westwall

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
Click to expand...







Yup.  In US v Miller the Court ruled that a short barreled shotgun could be regulated "because it had no foreseeable military purpose".  Our dear mr. jones likes to ignore those little facts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu



Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service". 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.


"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".

However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
Click to expand...


I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
Click to expand...

_George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


Bear Arms
*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
Click to expand...

In your own words, what's the purpose of the second amendment?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...


Yes, that's nice. 

You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.

1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.

Slight problem. Back to that document I posted. 

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?

Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty. 

As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?

You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?

You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.

2) You posted about the unorganized militia. 

Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist. 

Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.

So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment. 

But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia. 

So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your own words, what's the purpose of the second amendment?
Click to expand...


To protect the militia from Federal interference.

The US federal govt has the power, in article 1 section 8, to arm the militia. It could therefore disarm the militia.

Imagine that a guy joins up the militia, his own personal gun is considered a militia weapon because he's in the militia, and then they take it off him. No more guns, no more effective militia.

So, they protected the right to own guns, so the militia would have a ready supply of weaponry in a time of need. (Like the feds had taken all the guns away from the militia). 

But then guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. So they needed to protect the right to be in the militia. 

The right to bear arms. The right to be in the militia. The right to render military service. The right to militia duty, as the Founding Fathers stated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Darkwind said:


> We fight for liberty -- win or lose.


Well said...


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
Click to expand...


I'm lost. 

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?




frigidweirdo said:


> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.



Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
Click to expand...

"So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
Click to expand...

The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Remember Katrina? Several soldiers were video saying they would draw down on Americans and gun confiscation did happen during that time.


And the confiscating agency was sued by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation and was ordered by the court to return the weapons.  I do not recall hearing any follow-up on the soldiers though.
NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures

I thought it was forbidden for our military to be used against U.S. citizens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Katrina? Several soldiers were video saying they would draw down on Americans and gun confiscation did happen during that time.
> 
> 
> 
> And the confiscating agency was sued by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation and was ordered by the court to return the weapons.  I do not recall hearing any follow-up on the soldiers though.
> NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures
> 
> I thought it was forbidden for our military to be used against U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

it is illegal unless the posse comatous act is resent under an emergency


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."
Click to expand...


Well done. You've just posted a quote that I posted.

So, are we agreed that I did not say what you claimed I said? 

Are we also in agreement that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty"?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
Click to expand...


Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

"the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

Federal Statutes Annotated

Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too. 

But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
Click to expand...







No, they didn't.  It is YOU who ignore what the Founders said.  Show me where any of these quotes refer to military service you imbecile.

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"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

*"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789*_


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Click to expand...

There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia 
And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _George Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights it was his belief that the people were the militia _
> Bear Arms
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done. You've just posted a quote that I posted.
> 
> So, are we agreed that I did not say what you claimed I said?
> 
> Are we also in agreement that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty"?
Click to expand...

You said
"So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it"
Then you followed up with 
"I'm lost.

Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?" 
So which is it? should we add everybody to the unorganized militia something they are already part of or did you lie?


----------



## capego

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
Click to expand...




The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:

Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67


"""
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

....

Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

"""

The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.


And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:

"""

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

"""

You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".  

What an insane perverse interpretation you have.


"""

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

"""

Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.


This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.


----------



## capego

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.
> 
> Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical.  The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
Click to expand...



That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.


The court's ruling:
"""
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
"""

The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.

And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.

In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.

And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.

And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.

And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.

At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.


Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.

I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.

So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
Click to expand...




bigrebnc1775 said:


> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia


Who told you that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

capego said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong.  These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it.  And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco).  Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.
> 
> 
> The court's ruling:
> """
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> """
> 
> The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.
> 
> And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.
> 
> In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.
> 
> And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
> 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
> 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.
> 
> And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.
> 
> And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.
> 
> At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.
> 
> 
> Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.
> 
> I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.
> 
> So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.
Click to expand...

oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
Click to expand...

The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> 
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
Click to expand...



show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
Click to expand...

Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...



I did.

Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.

it doesn't.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

"(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


----------



## TNHarley

IsaacNewton said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't spam my thread.  Apparently you didn't read my OP.  I've included tanks and rocket launchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

They are allowed


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
Click to expand...

Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Click to expand...

Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.
> 
> They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
Click to expand...

Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?


----------



## capego

bigrebnc1775 said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance.  Have you served?
> 
> I have.
> 
> There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.
> 
> 
> The court's ruling:
> """
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> """
> 
> The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.
> 
> And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.
> 
> In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.
> 
> And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
> 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
> 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.
> 
> And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.
> 
> And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.
> 
> At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.
> 
> 
> Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.
> 
> I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.
> 
> So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member
Click to expand...


It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision.  Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> 
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
Click to expand...


ignoring the first paragraph?


"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

capego said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes.  The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).
> 
> The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance.  Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.
> 
> How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.
> 
> 
> The court's ruling:
> """
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> """
> 
> The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.
> 
> And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.
> 
> In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.
> 
> And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
> 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
> 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.
> 
> And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.
> 
> And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.
> 
> At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.
> 
> 
> Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.
> 
> I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.
> 
> So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision.  Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?
Click to expand...

I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller  
It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
Click to expand...

Your argument is about the militia 
Ignoring the last subsection B2
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


----------



## capego

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Click to expand...


The particulars of how the government defines a militia are irrelevant to the right to bear arms - the right is not predicated on the formation of a militia.  Please see my post on the Miller decision.

Further, to constrain the right to a government definition of militia is an example of what Elbridge Gerry was referencing when he said "they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins".  And, amusingly, you have a definition that destroys the militia and replaces it with a federal national guard (military).


----------



## capego

bigrebnc1775 said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment is not being ‘violated’ by the states or Federal government.
> 
> All the laws in all the states are in compliance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, as are Federal firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what firearm regulatory measures violate the Second Amendment, not message board posters.
> 
> 
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.
> 
> 
> The court's ruling:
> """
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> """
> 
> The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.
> 
> And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.
> 
> In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.
> 
> And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
> 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
> 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.
> 
> And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.
> 
> And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.
> 
> At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.
> 
> 
> Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.
> 
> I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.
> 
> So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision.  Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller
> It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.
Click to expand...


Apparently you do not. It was not a beneficial decision for gun owners, but, instead, showed the corruption of the court.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

capego said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
> *Opinion of the Court*
> In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That court's decision is apparently a malicious misinterpretation from a government seeking to dispossess you of the broader right.
> 
> 
> The court's ruling:
> """
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ...[weapon] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
> """
> 
> The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia, and, yet, the court's interpretation requires exactly that.  At the time, canons, bombs, bomb shooting canons, or repeater rifles were, perhaps, the most widely lethal arms, and, the founders envisioned *no* arm that a citizen should be restricted from (thus "shall not be infringed" without reference to type restrictions).  Consequently, even from this ruling, this court should have no problem with the right to rocket launchers or automatic machine guns.
> 
> And, at the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which *might* be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms.  Further, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided.  If it was the intent to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment.  If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, this would have been how the amendment was written.
> 
> In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner.
> 
> And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias.  It means one or both of two things:
> 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication.
> 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right.
> 
> And, in having read much from the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning.  The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature.  And, specifically, the right to bear arms is the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything, (government, criminal, alligator)  that would violate you.
> 
> And so, it is a right all the way down to needles and brass knuckles and all the way up to - well, that is to be determined, but at least canons that shoot bombs and vessels that carry many of these such canons.
> 
> At best, the gun grabbers can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment, and that spirit is of people power.   And, nukes, arguably, are not a people power weapon.  But, tanks are.
> 
> 
> Now lets consider the intent of the court's ruling.
> 
> I can imagine scenarios where a sawn off shotgun would provide utility to a militia.  But, the court is saying they need evidence towards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and without that evidence, the court can decide to dispossess you of the right for any particular class of arms.
> 
> So, clearly, the intent of the ruling is to subject the right to governments' interpretation of what is needed for the efficiency of a government defined militia (for them to judge efficiency requires they also define what the militia is).  This is a beautiful case of exactly what the founders were attempting to avoid with the amendment - the infringement of the rights of the people by a government gradually turning to tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh but the interpretation would have to follow a couple of things is the firearm in common use and it would have to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and provided by the member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not appear that you read any of my post about the Miller decision.  Why would you reply to my post if you did not read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know all I need to know about U.S. VS Miller
> It is what it is those black rifles the left hate so much are the very ones the miller court would agree that has protection under the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you do not. It was not a beneficial decision for gun owners, but, instead, showed the corruption of the court.
Click to expand...

You don't like the ruling so it's a corrupt court.
To me it's the line in the sand take those weapons and that law becomes unenforceable by means of a second amendment solution.


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is about the militia
> Ignoring the last subsection B2
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...



the age limit for the Militia still applies.

I don't know which is worse.

your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.

Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is about the militia
> Ignoring the last subsection B2
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the age limit for the Militia still applies.
> 
> I don't know which is worse.
> 
> your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.
> 
> Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Months ago, when a poster claimed the 'unorganized militia' covered everyone.
> 
> it doesn't.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
> 
> "(a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is about the militia
> Ignoring the last subsection B2
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the age limit for the Militia still applies.
> 
> I don't know which is worse.
> 
> your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.
> 
> Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.
Click to expand...


The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?

use some common sense.

(even if you have to borrow it)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

WillHaftawaite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the unorganized covers everyone who is not connected with the organized militia (National Guard) or the regular military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is about the militia
> Ignoring the last subsection B2
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the age limit for the Militia still applies.
> 
> I don't know which is worse.
> 
> your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.
> 
> Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?
> 
> use some common sense.
> 
> (even if you have to borrow it)
Click to expand...

It could be, are you age discriminatory?


----------



## Hugo Furst

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ignoring the first paragraph?
> 
> 
> "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> or are you under the delusion members of the unorganized militia consist of males and females from ages 8 to 90?
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is about the militia
> Ignoring the last subsection B2
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia *who are not members of* the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the age limit for the Militia still applies.
> 
> I don't know which is worse.
> 
> your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of common sense.
> 
> Whichever, there is no sense continuing this, from my point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't apply because the two are separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia can consist of males and females between the ages of 8 to 80?
> 
> use some common sense.
> 
> (even if you have to borrow it)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be, are you age discriminatory?
Click to expand...


no

but you're certainly proving you're a fool.

and incapable of reading.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
Click to expand...


Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd. 

I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.

Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me? 

Wow, then you attack me. 

See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.

Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages. 

Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The age requirement was for the organized militia, not the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
Click to expand...


So, no age limit for the unorganized militia. Which you've "proven" with ZERO sources. 

Actually the reality is that men aged 18-45 were AUTOMATICALLY put into the unorganized militia. This is what we're talking about. Others could fight, so it's not an issue of barring people from militia duty, it's simply a matter of the Dick Act saying men aged 18-45 were automatically in the unorganized militia.

Not that it matters much. It's not the issue here. 

There's nothing about losing rights here. Minors have limited rights. Nothing says that woman can't be in the militia. The National Guard has women, but it doesn't have minors.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> You've actually posted two very interesting things, probably without realizing it.
> 
> 1) Yes, the militia was supposed to be made up of the people. Not a standing army mind, but just ordinary people who would be called up when the time was right.
> 
> Slight problem. Back to that document I posted.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Why? Why would it be better to have NOTHING than a clause that excluded those with religious scruples from militia duty?
> 
> Basically the government could declare all people religiously scrupulous, and then bar them all from militia duty.
> 
> As Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> So how do you protect individuals to be in the militia?
> 
> You've just protected the right of individuals to own weapons so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> 
> Why not protect the right of individuals to be in the militia so that in times of need the militia has a ready supply of PERSONNEL?
> 
> You need two things for a militia to exist. A militia that could potentially fight the US federal govt. Guns and people. They protected both.
> 
> 2) You posted about the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why would they make an unorganized militia? What's the point of it. It's never, ever done anything. You're in it, but it doesn't exist.
> 
> Basically they made the unorganized militia because they knew that the days of militias were over. They'd failed and failed badly at doing what they needed to do.
> 
> So they made the National Guard. A better militia, a different militia, one with well trained personnel and modern equipment.
> 
> But everyone has the right to be in the militia. So Mr A Fuckhead could DEMAND to be in the National Guard. It's his right to be in the militia, the National Guard is the militia.
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it. Then when Mr A Fuckhead comes along and demands to be in the militia, kindly point out to him that he's already in the militia, bye bye, you are not getting in the National Guard, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically that's wrong. It's all able bodied men aged 17-45, but hey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done. You've just posted a quote that I posted.
> 
> So, are we agreed that I did not say what you claimed I said?
> 
> Are we also in agreement that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said
> "So, make the unorganized militia. Put everyone in it"
> Then you followed up with
> "I'm lost.
> 
> Where did I say that everyone wasn't in the unorganized militia?"
> So which is it? should we add everybody to the unorganized militia something they are already part of or did you lie?
Click to expand...


This is pointless. 

"Every able body man and woman who has not be deemed mentally unfit is in the unorganized Militia How did you not comprehend that?"

This is what you said. I don't know why you said it.

You like going off on tangents and picking up on the most pointless things and then trying to beat them to death. 

We're talking about the meaning of the term "bear arms".


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not. But this is not important here. The unorganized militia exists for a reason.
> 
> The Root Reforms and the National Guard
> 
> "the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."
> 
> Federal Statutes Annotated
> 
> Seems it's 18-45, not 17-45 too.
> 
> But seeing as the unorganized militia is just left to rot, as was the intention, it doesn't really matter, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> And yes it matters that's how we get these bull shit rulings from the liberal run courts. When the little things matter you can't lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no age requirement for the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule governing the unorganized militia tell me if you see anything about age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> show me the rule, then the description of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up do your own homework age is not mentioned in the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Full text of "The Militia Act of 1903"

"
THE MILITIA ACT OF 1903.

BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JAMES PAHKER, U.S.A., ACTING ASSISTANT
ADJUTANT-GENERAL."

"The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia
shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and
forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized
militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia."

The militia shall consist of every abled-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five. 

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

"The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

http://legisworks.org/sal/32/stats/STATUTE-32-Pg775.pdf

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist Coml PD9itioaof. of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard."


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
> The principle being:
> "
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
> "
> 
> 
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?
Click to expand...


But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.


----------



## capego

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
Click to expand...



Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
Click to expand...


What logic?



capego said:


> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.



Logic?

No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you. 

I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.


----------



## capego

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
Click to expand...


My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.

Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bear arms means "milita duty" or "render military service".
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is what they were discussing, a part of the 2A that didn't get in at the end.
> 
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia?"
> 
> Mr Gerry also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> it's pretty clear here that the Founding Fathers saw the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> However for gun people in the US, they don't like this meaning, so they'll do everything they can to ignore this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said. 

Learn.


----------



## capego

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd.  Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
> 
> Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
> 
> 
> """
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
> 
> ....
> 
> Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
> 
> """
> 
> The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people".  You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins".  And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of  forming a militia.
> 
> 
> And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> """
> 
> You are arguing that Jackson really meant
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
> "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
> 
> What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> """
> 
> Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
> 
> 
> This presents the question to me.  How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)?  And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
Click to expand...


Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
> 
> I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
> 
> Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
> 
> Wow, then you attack me.
> 
> See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
> 
> Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
> 
> ""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
> 
> Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
Click to expand...


As if this forum works like that.

It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me. 

Do you understand? 

Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.


----------



## capego

frigidweirdo said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points.   Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
Click to expand...


Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?

My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.

And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
Click to expand...


Am I talking about the meaning of the Second Amendment?

Yes, I am.

Your title is "*2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning"*

In your OP you gave your view of what you think the 2A means.

This invites other posters to present their own thoughts on whether you're right or wrong.

Now, let's clear this up.



capego said:


> 1. you are a troll



Does this have anything to do with the OP? 



capego said:


> 2. you are heavily indoctrinated



Does this have anything to do with the OP? 



capego said:


> 3. you have a mental illness.



Does this have anything to do with the OP? 

My thoughts are that no, attacking me has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

So, why do you do as you've suggested and STICK TO THE OP which is the Second Amendment and not Frigidweirdo.

Can you do that? Is it possible to stick to the OP?


----------



## Hugo Furst

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
Click to expand...


Just one problem with  your rhetoric.

The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.
Click to expand...

You call it making a case for impeachment 
Most people call it a coup.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What logic?
> 
> Logic?
> 
> No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
> 
> I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
Click to expand...

15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.

Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right. 

Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong. 

All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.
> 
> Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.
> 
> Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.
> 
> All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.
Click to expand...

Who was the second amendment preserved for?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.
> 
> Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.
> 
> Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.
> 
> All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was the second amendment preserved for?
Click to expand...


The Federal government.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are  arguing against the federalist papers on a point I only referenced from someone else.  Do you not see that quote from the federalist papers or did you not read The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison?
> 
> The question comes to me of, why would someone have such selective ignorance in favor of the federal government?  I think that is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call it making a case for impeachment
> Most people call it a coup.
Click to expand...


If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.
> 
> Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.
> 
> Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.
> 
> All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was the second amendment preserved for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal government.
Click to expand...

The government needs rights protected? 
lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found that the quotes in the Federalist Papers don't support any right wing meaning of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call it making a case for impeachment
> Most people call it a coup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Most people, that would be including you


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.
> 
> Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.
> 
> Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.
> 
> All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was the second amendment preserved for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government needs rights protected?
> lol
Click to expand...


No. Do I really need to point out the obvious here. 

Sigh, I guess I do.

The Second Amendment is a LIMIT on the power of the Federal govt. It doesn't give individuals anything. It prevents the feds from doing things.

You asked who the SECOND AMENDMENT (not the right to keep and bear arms) was PRESERVED FOR. It was PRESERVED FOR the FEDERAL GOVT.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceived the government to have become tyrannical, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you of the minority should not push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But impeachment is in the Constitution. It's a legal avenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call it making a case for impeachment
> Most people call it a coup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this were the case, then most people don't have a clue what's in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people, that would be including you
Click to expand...


Really? 

I know that impeachment is in the US Constitution.

Article 2, section 4 is about Presidential impeachment.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

See, I know the US Constitution.

Also article 1, Section 3

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."


----------



## capego

WillHaftawaite said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one problem with  your rhetoric.
> 
> The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.
Click to expand...


Not only that, but the discussion in the house only supports the spirit of the amendment being an unrestricted right to bear arms, without predication on a militia, for the purpose of fighting domestic tyranny.


----------



## capego

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 15 pages thus far in the thread and still nothing from the OP as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’ to the extent we can abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government.
> 
> Nothing from the OP as to how to garner consensus as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ consensus as to overthrowing a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people, and nothing from the OP as to the First Amendment right of the people change government through the political process, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ that right.
> 
> Absent those facts and evidence the notion that the Second Amendment exists to ‘deter tyranny’ and overthrow a ‘tyrannical government’ is indeed wrong.
> 
> All the OP has is his subjective, errant opinion – predicated on ignorance and baseless contrivance.
Click to expand...



This is not a thread about what constitutes a tyranny.  My particular or anyone's particular definition is irrelevant to the amendment in its restriction of government from infringement of the right, and your attempt to derail the conversation into such shows your malicious nature.


----------



## capego

WillHaftawaite said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult?  I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
> 
> Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason.  You are fitting that description presently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one problem with  your rhetoric.
> 
> The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.
Click to expand...



PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)

I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.


----------



## Hugo Furst

capego said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one problem with  your rhetoric.
> 
> The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)
> 
> I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.
Click to expand...


should be a button under the post, 'edit'.

Click it, highlight the area you want to change, click control i.


----------



## capego

WillHaftawaite said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one problem with  your rhetoric.
> 
> The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PS, is it possible to edit my post to format the quotes to italics on (#108 /threads/2nd-amendment-unapologetic-meaning.694266/page-11#post-20290402)
> 
> I don't think people are familiar enough with triple quotes to differentiate my content from content I'm quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> should be a button under the post, 'edit'.
> 
> Click it, highlight the area you want to change, click control i.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, it appears after a period of time the edit option goes away


----------



## frigidweirdo

capego said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if this forum works like that.
> 
> It's simple, you respond like an adult, or you don't get to debate with me.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Other people are debating with me. Others aren't because they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thought is that this forum works by ignoring the OP and posting what you want?
> 
> My supposition that you might be one of three things based on your rather perverse interpretation of a discussion about the amendment is perfectly logical.  It is your choice to cry about it to avoid my arguments.
> 
> And, I don't care to debate you.  I only care if you actually have good contentions against my postings, which, it appears, you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one problem with  your rhetoric.
> 
> The opinions of the people you quote, Gerry, etc, failed to make it into the final version of the Second, making them moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only that, but the discussion in the house only supports the spirit of the amendment being an unrestricted right to bear arms, without predication on a militia, for the purpose of fighting domestic tyranny.
Click to expand...


Had you read my points, you might have noticed that I didn't say anything about militia duty being a condition of the RKBA.

In fact it wouldn't make sense for that to happen. 

But I'm used to people fighting what they want me to have written and not what I actually wrote. It happens every time.


----------



## danielpalos

capego said:


> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu


it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.


----------



## capego

danielpalos said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
_"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.


----------



## frigidweirdo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.



Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny. 

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.


----------



## danielpalos

capego said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> As I stated
> _"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_
> 
> And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:
> 
> "_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

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


----------



## RetiredGySgt

danielpalos said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> As I stated
> _"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_
> 
> And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:
> 
> "_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> As I stated
> _"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_
> 
> And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:
> 
> "_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what it has Always meant.  Only the right wing, never gets it.

The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.

First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

danielpalos said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> As I stated
> _"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_
> 
> And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:
> 
> "_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is what it has Always meant.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.
> 
> First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

The English language is not your friend neither of those clauses have any bearing on the shall not infringe right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> As I stated
> _"A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms_
> 
> And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:
> 
> "_The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is what it has Always meant.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.
> 
> First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The English language is not your friend neither of those clauses have any bearing on the shall not infringe right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The second clause must follow wherever the first clause leads.  Every "second sergeant", knows this.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
Click to expand...

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
Click to expand...

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
Click to expand...

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.


----------



## danielpalos

RetiredGySgt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
Click to expand...

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


Only an idiot would assume the majority of the military would follow the unlawful order to fire on groups of US citizens.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

danielpalos said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

IsaacNewton said:


> So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?



Your petty frivolous irrational arguments are super easy to dispel.
The 2nd Amendment specifically addresses the right of We The People (but not you) are empowered to be armed such that We The People (again, not you) can defend ourselves against the tyranny of our own government or group gaining control of said government.

Nuclear weapons are intended as deterrents to International threats.  The government is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons domestically but then I can see why you jackwads might fear it.   As usual in your spasticism,  garbage spews from your lips.

As far as tanks and rocket launchers.....if the US government is taken over by you nut jobs then we certainly will need weapons capable of stopping such tanks used against We The People (Last time, NOT YOU).


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.



You fool.   You have NO CLUE what the US Constitution is all about.   Shocking.  

People with totally fucked up thought processes like you should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the verification and reiteration.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.



*It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.*

*US History 101*


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fool.   You have NO CLUE what the US Constitution is all about.   Shocking.
> 
> People with totally fucked up thought processes like you should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Thanks for the verification and reiteration.
Click to expand...

The only one who is Clueless and Causeless, is You.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

danielpalos said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
Click to expand...

Your opinion, now here are a few opinions on the subject of a individuals right to bear arms. You might recognize some of these people/ 

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"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

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"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

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

BasicHumanUnit said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.*
> 
> *US History 101*
Click to expand...

It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards all of our rights as law abiding US citizens.


----------



## danielpalos

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion, now here are a few opinions on the subject of a individuals right to bear arms. You might recognize some of these people/
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
> 
> "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
> 
> "To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
> 
> "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
> 
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
> - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
> 
> "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
> - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_
Click to expand...

so what; our Constitution is Express, not Implied.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.
> 
> But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.
> 
> However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.
Click to expand...

Actually not.

The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BasicHumanUnit said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.*
> 
> *US History 101*
Click to expand...

Also wrong.

In this and scores of other threads on the topic, no advocate of the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is a ‘safeguard against tyranny’ has provided any evidence, any lawful citation, any reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical.’

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that authorizes an armed minority to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that by which the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are suspended, denying the people their right to participate in the political and judicial process.

Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that garners the consensus of the people that government has become ‘tyrannical,’ where the majority of the people support ‘armed rebellion’ against a government having become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, what is the process by which the Constitution itself is abandoned, the rule of law discarded, and the will of the people ignored justifying ‘armed rebellion’ against ‘tyranny.’

The simple fact is that there is no evidence, no lawful citation, and no reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’; such evidence simply doesn’t exist – it’s nothing but contrived mythology and baseless inference on the part of the political right desperately trying to ‘justify’ the possession of firearms other than the right to self-defense.


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.*
> 
> *US History 101*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also wrong.
> 
> In this and scores of other threads on the topic, no advocate of the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is a ‘safeguard against tyranny’ has provided any evidence, any lawful citation, any reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that authorizes an armed minority to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that by which the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are suspended, denying the people their right to participate in the political and judicial process.
> 
> Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that garners the consensus of the people that government has become ‘tyrannical,’ where the majority of the people support ‘armed rebellion’ against a government having become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> Indeed, what is the process by which the Constitution itself is abandoned, the rule of law discarded, and the will of the people ignored justifying ‘armed rebellion’ against ‘tyranny.’
> 
> The simple fact is that there is no evidence, no lawful citation, and no reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’; such evidence simply doesn’t exist – it’s nothing but contrived mythology and baseless inference on the part of the political right desperately trying to ‘justify’ the possession of firearms other than the right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses the security of a free State, as the Intent and Purpose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.*
> 
> *US History 101*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards all of our rights as law abiding US citizens.
Click to expand...

Subjective opinion, not fact of law.

See post #187, respond with objective, documented legal evidence authorizing abandoning the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully installed government through ‘force of arms.’


----------



## frigidweirdo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.
> 
> But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.
> 
> However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.
> 
> And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.
Click to expand...


I would disagree. 

The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out. 

Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc. 

The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate. 

That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge. 

Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so. 

Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense. 

The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.

Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.

"A well regulated militia..."

Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?

That makes no sense at all.

If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

frigidweirdo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.
> 
> But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.
> 
> However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.
> 
> And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree.
> 
> The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.
> 
> Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.
> 
> The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.
> 
> That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.
> 
> Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.
> 
> Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.
> 
> The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.
> 
> Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.
> 
> "A well regulated militia..."
> 
> Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?
> 
> That makes no sense at all.
> 
> If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

The Militia was the cops as well back then.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
Click to expand...





danielpalos said:


> The People are The Militia.



only the people in the military 



danielpalos said:


> not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.



only those between the ages of 18-45, NOT in the military.


----------



## frigidweirdo

RetiredGySgt said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.
> 
> The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.
> 
> But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.
> 
> However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.
> 
> And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree.
> 
> The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.
> 
> Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.
> 
> The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.
> 
> That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.
> 
> Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.
> 
> Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.
> 
> The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.
> 
> Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.
> 
> "A well regulated militia..."
> 
> Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?
> 
> That makes no sense at all.
> 
> If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Militia was the cops as well back then.
Click to expand...


Maybe it was. Doesn't have any bearing on this.

Look, just because it says "militia", that doesn't mean it protects all things the militia might like to do.


----------



## Jerico

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


 Our military can't even beat third world monkeys using 40 year old guns and no capability to make their own ammo.

Pretty sure the US population, which purchases more guns and ammunition each black friday than would be required to fully equip the entire USMC would absolutely never succumb to the military.

The idea that a conventional war against the population, by its own military, would involve anything more powerful than conventional weapons is missing the point.

Any attempt to "take over" a country means to seize its wealth, not destroy it. The military would be forced to occupy and subjugate. Good luck with that in a country where private citizens own half of the entire world's guns and more than 2/3 of its ammo.

There is no scenario where our military, or any military, benefits from scorched earth tactics on that scale. Nobody would nuke the cities of this country, nor kill off  its population. What would be the gain?

The citizen militia has orders of magnitude more resources of war than the military does. They would lose by attrition alone.

There is no force on this earth more feared than the US public. It is far more powerful and more capable than the military. The gun control nuts know this which is why they try their damnedest to disarm us. Their dream dictatorship is impossible so long as the citizens have their constitutional mandate to be the hard counter against such authoritarianism.

Our military keeps the world honest. We keep our military honest.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment.  The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are The Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only the people in the military
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only those between the ages of 18-45, NOT in the military.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia under the common law.


----------



## Jerico

capego said:


> _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_



It's incredible how authoritarians try to twist the meaning of this phrase, but alas, it is very plain and obvious what it states.

First, it should be noted that the 2nd amendment ( and all amendments in the Bill of Rights) is addressing the government not the people. It isn't granting people any right. Rather, it is reminding the government of an infringement it has not the power to impose.

Everyone, by natural law according to the core constitution, has inalienable rights. All such rights imaginable, listed or not, are available to the people so long as they do not impose upon the rights of others. These rights are not granted by the government, and so cannot be removed by the government. Furthermore, they are inalienable and thus can never be revoked or overwritten by the states either. 

This means that the 2nd amendment can never be revoked, nor can it be overwritten. It is not, in any way, a limitation or a granted privilege upon the citizens. Like the rest of  The Bill of Rights, it  is merely a reminder to the government of its own limitations, and those limitations are not exclusive to that list. The government is restricted from all things unless explicitly stated otherwise. For the people, it is the opposite, they have every right, unless it infringes on the rights of others.

The above is important, because sometimes I think us pro 2nd amendment people set ourselves up for a weakened position by relying too much on the amendment itself. It's easy to fall back on, but it's important to realize that the right to bear arms is not just one asterisk in the document. It is a fundamental right that no man, nor government of man can EVER remove or infringe upon.

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*

This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.

*",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
*
This is the object of the sentence. It mentions nothing of a militia. It refers merely to the people and their right to bear arms. No restrictions are built into this object. It doesn't say "right to bear small arms" or right to "bear arms on tuesdays". It is quite succinctly, the right to bear arms without any conditions attached.


_
*, shall not be infringed.*_

This is the directive. As such, you'll note that it is not directed toward the people. It is directed towards the government. The reader, in this case, isn't the people, it is those elected to run the government.

There is absolutely no ambiguity. The location of the commas is very important. Every attempt I've seen to bastardize the meaning of the 2nd amendment involves either eliminating or moving the commas or claiming that the amendment itself is granting the right, when in fact, it does not.

We could talk day in and day out about things the Founding Father's didn't know about- like pocket nukes or grenades that are often used to debate these principles. My goal here is not to argue for or against such debates. What I can tell you is that simply put, the right to bear arms can't be infringed. It's pretty simple.

The Founding Fathers lived in a time where it was fine and reasonable for any person to own the most sophisticated military tech of the time. If you wanted, you could have the newest gun or war galley. There was literally no restriction. Would they change their tune if they saw a bazooka, or a grenade, or an A10? I don't know, but honestly, I doubt it. They were tough sons of Bitches who thought the best way to live was to throw the dice and go with the results.

We are seeing a similar trend with nukes anyways. As more countries get them, the world becomes more peaceful. You could consider this the country sized version of armed against tyranny. Can you blame North Korea for wanting nukes? No, you may not like it, but for them, it's the same insurance policy against imperialism that our AR 15s are against tyranny.

So really, I don't know where to draw that line. If I had to choose between everyone having literally any weapon or nobody having any weapon, I'll take the former. To remove weapons from the equation is to return us to the days of governance by force rather than reason.


----------



## danielpalos

> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.



It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.


----------



## Jerico

danielpalos said:


> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
Click to expand...


_*, shall not be infringed.*_

This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.


----------



## danielpalos

Jerico said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.


----------



## Jerico

danielpalos said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
Click to expand...


It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another  person.

The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.

The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)

The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.

At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.


----------



## EGR one

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.



Your argument presupposes that it would be necessary to fight the greatest military in the world, and that the U.S. military would long remain the greatest military in the world.  Both scenarios would be unlikely.


----------



## Freiheit

IsaacNewton said:


> The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.
> 
> Uh huh.


The US has not won a war since 1945 and all but one have been guerilla wars.


----------



## danielpalos

Jerico said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another  person.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.
> 
> The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)
> 
> The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.
> 
> At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.
Click to expand...

The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.  

Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.


----------



## Jerico

danielpalos said:


> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> This is merely context. It's stating an objective, not a requirement or a restriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another  person.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.
> 
> The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)
> 
> The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.
> 
> At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.
> 
> Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.
Click to expand...


It does mean something. It provides the context. It doesn't, however, define a limitation or a restriction. Again, the structure of the sentence is very important and removes all ambiguity. As written it can be interpreted only one way. The people have a right to form a militia and require equally the right to bare arms in order to do so. Infringement upon this right to assemble militarily is prohibited.

This is precisely the analog to the 1st amendment's right to peacefully assemble.

We have a right to peacefully assemble. To do so, we need the right to speak as well. (1st amendment)

We have a right to also assemble militarily. To do so, we need the right to bare arms as well.(2nd amendment)

This is corroborated by the readings of the constitution itself as well as the supplementary text of the Founding Fathers. They made it clear that should peaceful assembly and speech fail, the people have the right and resources to overthrow the government by force.


----------



## danielpalos

Jerico said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the legislative Intent and Purpose.  No amount of Judicial activism, can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> This makes it quite clear that the only legislative intent is no legislation at all. It is after all the only part of the statement directing any action, and that action is no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about, the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about neither of those. The entire Bill of Rights is merely an addendum reminding the government of things that it cannot do. It's not an inclusive list, and it doesn't grant any rights to the people. The core constitution makes it clear that the people have a right to do all things which do not directly infringe on the rights of another  person.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of restrictions on the federal government. Nothing more.
> 
> The Bill of Rights (including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights)
> 
> The Bill of Rights adds nothing to the core constitution. They are merely clarifications and declarations of intent. They do not modify, in any way, the fundamental rights inalienable to the people as prescribed by the constitution itself.
> 
> At the time, the anti federalists didn't trust that future governments would interpret the constitution honestly (how wise they were). They wouldn't ratify it without first having these clarifications placed in the document. Since they do not violate or modify the core constitution, they were added to the end as an addendum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause is Expressed, not Implied.
> 
> Words matter; the first clause must mean Something to the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does mean something. It provides the context. It doesn't, however, define a limitation or a restriction. Again, the structure of the sentence is very important and removes all ambiguity. As written it can be interpreted only one way. The people have a right to form a militia and require equally the right to bare arms in order to do so. Infringement upon this right to assemble militarily is prohibited.
> 
> This is precisely the analog to the 1st amendment's right to peacefully assemble.
> 
> We have a right to peacefully assemble. To do so, we need the right to speak as well. (1st amendment)
> 
> We have a right to also assemble militarily. To do so, we need the right to bare arms as well.(2nd amendment)
> 
> This is corroborated by the readings of the constitution itself as well as the supplementary text of the Founding Fathers. They made it clear that should peaceful assembly and speech fail, the people have the right and resources to overthrow the government by force.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights; it says so, in the first clause.  

The first clause is the End.

The second clause is the Means.


----------



## 52ndStreet

We should all have the right to buy fully automatic assault rifles nad submachine guns. States should not decide to ban certain weapons of their choice. We must stop the Democratic infringement of the 2nd amendment.!!


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> We should all have the right to buy fully automatic assault rifles nad submachine guns. States should not decide to ban certain weapons of their choice. We must stop the Democratic infringement of the 2nd amendment.!!


Read up on Class 3 Weapons requirements.  The right wing are a bunch of drama queens.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

capego said:


> _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._
> 
> 
> "a free State" = not a tyranny
> "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
> "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.
> The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.
> 
> It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.
> 
> *Frivolous Arguments*
> "But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
> So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.
> 
> "Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
> So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.
> 
> "A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
> Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.
> 
> "Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
> Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego.icu


*Some of the arms are self restricted no one builds a tank, a long range missile, and many other weapons.  The ones that can be build are bombs, posion gas, and e,t,c.*


----------

