# The original intent of the second amendment



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.


This is how the national guard started.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 27, 2021)

I know I know. We must ignore their actual intent, the shit they ACTUALLY said, so you federal supremacists can finally jerkoff in peace.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias


To keep and bear arms is the right of the people. The people. Individual human beings with trigger fingers. Got that?

No not States. And not subject to States rights either. That's a pre-civil war Democrat concept.

Guns are never outdated.


----------



## hjmick (Jul 27, 2021)

This newbie is a fucking hoot!


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.



Read it again.  You really fucked up the first time.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> To keep and bear arms is the right of the people. The people. Individual human beings with trigger fingers. Got that?
> 
> No not States. And not subject to States rights either. That's a pre-civil war Democrat concept.
> 
> Guns are never outdated.


Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.



And which historical writings do you get this analysis from?


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?



Can I save your post?  It's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?


Arms. With a capital A. That is, Firearms and other weapons.








						Check out the translation for "arma" on SpanishDict!
					

Translate millions of words and phrases for free on SpanishDict, the world's largest Spanish-English dictionary and translation website.




					www.spanishdict.com


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> This is how the national guard started.


Private volunteer militias aren't DoD.

What would you do if you couldn't lie out your ass, Jake?


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

marvin martian said:


> Can I save your post?  It's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.


Of course my post was too abstract for you.  It was directed to those with a three digit IQ.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> I know I know. We must ignore their actual intent, the shit they ACTUALLY said, so you federal supremacists can finally jerkoff in peace.


It's best to know why they said what they did say.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> It's best to know why they said what they did say.


It's plain English, Jake.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> To keep and bear arms is the right of the people. The people. Individual human beings with trigger fingers. Got that?
> 
> No not States. And not subject to States rights either. That's a pre-civil war Democrat concept.
> 
> Guns are never outdated.


I think you better review history, you must have slept through it.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Oddball said:


> It's plain English, Jake.
> 
> View attachment 518006


You  intentionally left out the rest of the sentence.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 27, 2021)

Again....


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Again....
> 
> View attachment 518008


hmmmmm....that looks familiar.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 27, 2021)

See, the problem with a free society........

Is that Little Statist Bitches who hate freedom are free to work to bring it down


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 27, 2021)

Oddball said:


> hmmmmm....that looks familiar.



I'm putting it to good use.    SO appropriate here


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> You  intentionally left out the rest of the sentence.


I left out nothing, you fucking sock puppet fraud.


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Of course my post was too abstract for you.  It was directed to those with a three digit IQ.



You missed by two decimal places, retard.  But I VERY much enjoyed learning that you don't know what the word "arms" means.


----------



## miketx (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.


Read the entirety of it? It's one fucking sentence!


----------



## miketx (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> I think you better review history, you must have slept through it.


Come get mine, commie.


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 27, 2021)

Race Burley said:


> Read the entirety of it? It's one fucking sentence!



Yes, but he doesn't know what the word "arms" means, so that makes it harder for him.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 27, 2021)

Kat​Jake the fake is back again, lmfao​


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Arms. With a capital A. That is, Firearms and other weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you.  And that leads us to ask further questions.

 "*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*."

*If the people have the right to keep and bear Arms, and for that right to not be infringed, it seems that Safeway and other large supermarkets should be able to sell firearms in their stores with no identification whatsoever.  Supermarkets all across our country can sell gravity and push button knives to a 12 year old, and anyone can buy in a hardware store an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade, a surface to air missile and Claymore to keep the neighborhood kids off of their front yard.*


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> I know I know. We must ignore their actual intent, the shit they ACTUALLY said, so you federal supremacists can finally jerkoff in peace.


That really was moronic of you; you revealed your proclivities.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 27, 2021)

A moot argument. The 2nd Amendment does exist and the courts have ruled it applies to the individual right to own arms.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Thank you.  And that leads us to ask further questions.
> 
> "*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*."
> 
> *If the people have the right to keep and bear Arms, and for that right to not be infringed, it seems that Safeway and other large supermarkets should be able to sell firearms in their stores with no identification whatsoever.  Supermarkets all across our country can sell gravity and push button knives to a 12 year old, and anyone can buy in a hardware store a anti-personnel fragmentation grenade, a surface to air missile and Claymore to keep the neighborhood kids off of their front yard.*


Never been in a Wal-Mart?


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> And which historical writings do you get this analysis from?


Reading, you should try it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

hjmick said:


> This newbies is a fucking hoot!I


4:1 it's Fake Malarkey.


----------



## miketx (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Thank you.  And that leads us to ask further questions.
> 
> "*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*."
> 
> *If the people have the right to keep and bear Arms, and for that right to not be infringed, it seems that Safeway and other large supermarkets should be able to sell firearms in their stores with no identification whatsoever.  Supermarkets all across our country can sell gravity and push button knives to a 12 year old, and anyone can buy in a hardware store an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade, a surface to air missile and Claymore to keep the neighborhood kids off of their front yard.*


I'm so glad I put this babbling commie on ignore.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> You  intentionally left out the rest of the sentence.


He's on ignore to me, but I'm sure he did leave out something germane, he's dishonest and a creep.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

pknopp said:


> A moot argument. The 2nd Amendment does exist and the courts have ruled it applies to the individual right to own arms.


Not entirely.  Felons, people who have been determined to be a danger to themselves and others, are just two who have lost the privilege; thus the 2nd is not an absolute right.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

bear513 said:


> Never been in a Wal-Mart?


Nope, it's all Chinese products.  I try to buy American made.  However you missed the point, to  wit for those who can comprehend:

"If the people have the right to keep and bear Arms, and for that right to not be infringed, it seems that Safeway and other large supermarkets should be able to sell firearms in their stores with no identification whatsoever. Supermarkets all across our country can sell gravity and push button knives to a 12 year old, and anyone can buy in a hardware store an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade, a surface to air missile and a Claymore to keep the neighborhood kids off of their front yard."


----------



## pknopp (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Not entirely.  Felons, people who have been determined to be a danger to themselves and others, are just two who have lost the privilege; thus the 2nd is not an absolute right.



 The Constitution also lays out how one's rights can be removed through due process. I said nothing to the contrary.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Nope, it's all Chinese products.  I try to buy American made.  However you missed the point, to  wit for those who can comprehend:
> 
> "If the people have the right to keep and bear Arms, and for that right to not be infringed, it seems that Safeway and other large supermarkets should be able to sell firearms in their stores with no identification whatsoever. Supermarkets all across our country can sell gravity and push button knives to a 12 year old, and anyone can buy in a hardware store an anti-personnel fragmentation grenade, a surface to air missile and a Claymore to keep the neighborhood kids off of their front yard."


So food sold at walmarts are grown and raised in China

Who knew?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 27, 2021)

It's a moot point 250 years later. The Founding Fathers might have foresaw the need of civilians to be able to defend themselves against simple assault and robbery and have the right to engage in sport shooting and hunting. The Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment in several decisions.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

pknopp said:


> The Constitution also lays out how one's rights can be removed through due process. I said nothing to the contrary.


Of course, not only those noted but those on Probation, Parole and with a dishonorable discharge.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

bear513 said:


> So food sold at walmarts are grown and raised in China
> 
> Who knew?


In cans, bozo, I don't know if walmarts have fresh produce or meat.


----------



## miketx (Jul 27, 2021)

whitehall said:


> It's a moot point 250 years later. The Founding Fathers might have foresaw the need of civilians to be able to defend themselves against simple assault and robbery and have the right to engage in sport shooting and hunting. The Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment in several decisions.


Riiiiiiiight. Total bullshit.


----------



## Flash (Jul 27, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.




The intent of the Second is stated in the amendment very clearly; "...necessary for the security of a free state".


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 27, 2021)

whitehall said:


> It's a moot point 250 years later. The Founding Fathers might have foresaw the need of civilians to be able to defend themselves against simple assault and robbery and have the right to engage in sport shooting and hunting. The Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment in several decisions.


In Heller, Scalia weakened the "shall not be infringed" dependent clause.

"*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 well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is an independent clause;*

*"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is a dependent clause.



			https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/independent_and_dependent_clauses/index.html
		

*


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 27, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> See, the problem with a free society........
> 
> Is that Little Statist Bitches who hate freedom are free to work to bring it down


Democrats and small town Republicans.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Oddball said:


> 4:1 it's Fake Malarkey.


What an odd name. Your parents actually did that to you.


----------



## Stann (Jul 27, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In Heller, Scalia weakened the "shall not be infringed" dependent clause.
> 
> "*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*."
> 
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> To keep and bear arms is the right of the people. The people. Individual human beings with trigger fingers. Got that?
> 
> No not States. And not subject to States rights either. That's a pre-civil war Democrat concept.
> 
> Guns are never outdated.


Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


The Mafia Constitution doesn't apply in my state.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> The Mafia Constitution doesn't apply in my state.


All States have that police power.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 28, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?


where are they not included??


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All States have that police power.


So you are pro-Mafia, pro-organized crime then, and that is your agenda of depriving law abiding people of their Firearms and other weapons.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> So you are pro-Mafia, pro-organized crime then, and that is your agenda of depriving law abiding people of their Firearms and other weapons.


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

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.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> 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.


So where does that give "the state" the right to infringe the people's right to keep and bear Arms?

That is, a *free state*, where people are free to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, not a *slave state* where guns are banned.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> So where does that give "the state" the right to infringe the people's right to keep and bear Arms?
> 
> That is, a *free state*, where people are free to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons, not a *slave state* where guns are banned.


The People are the militia, you are either well regulated or unorganized.  The unorganized militia as Individuals are subject to the police power of their State. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia as Individuals are subject to the police power of their State


That is irrelevant. I don't live in a Mafia state, and the Chicago aldermen cannot have any say about my rights to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> That is irrelevant. I don't live in a Mafia state, and the Chicago aldermen cannot have any say about my rights to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons.


The police power is a State's right.   Individuals of the People are subject to the police power.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The police power is a State's right.   Individuals of the People are subject to the police power.


Is this the USA? Or is it some totalitarian police state I am unaware of?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Is this the USA? Or is it some totalitarian police state I am unaware of?


It is just your ignorance of the law.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is just your ignorance of the law.


You are totally ignorant, not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of every principle of law anywhere under the authority of the U.S.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You are totally ignorant, not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of every principle of law anywhere under the authority of the U.S.


You wish, right-winger.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You wish, right-winger.


Get off my property with that Democrat Mafia mob rule enforcement squad and your puss-in-boots fire department.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

Right-wingers have nothing but fallacy.  Why should we take them seriously?


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Right-wingers have nothing but fallacy.  Why should we take them seriously?


Get off the weed before you die. You and all your buddies on the extreme left.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Get off the weed before you die. You and all your buddies on the extreme left.


Alcohol is worse.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Alcohol is worse.


I don't care what you people are on. The drunken marijuana-addled crowds cannot get away with revoking the gun rights of clean and soberaw abiding citizens.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

Someone has mod privs and is hacking posts


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 28, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?


True.  Arms includes a much broader category than just guns.   Thanks for pointing that out.

In addition to my machine guns, give me my tank and howitzers.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> True.  Arms includes a much broader category than just guns.   Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> In addition to my machine guns, give me my tank and howitzers.


Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jul 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


And having said that, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The people. Human beings. Citizens. Your neighbors. Townspeople. Whether you like them or not. Whether they have military instruction or not. Whether they are wearing blue uniforms or not. Got that?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> And having said that, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> 
> The people. Human beings. Citizens. Your neighbors. Townspeople. Whether you like them or not. Whether they have military instruction or not. Whether they are wearing blue uniforms or not. Got that?


Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; and why the Union had to win our Civil War.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.


Sigh.
The of the people to keep and bear arms was protectedfrom infringement so the states would always have a capacity to form militias.
This does not in any way limit the 2A protection of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms to those serving in the militia -- "the people" is a broader category of persons than "the militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" is broader category of use than "service in the militia".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Where in the 2nd A. are guns noted?


"Arms" cannot, in any rational or honest way, be read to exclude firearms.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 29, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Arms" cannot, in any rational or honest way, be read to exclude firearms.


Of course not, that is not my point.  Arms include firearms, as well as every weapon of war noted in my post which you didn't fully post.  Thus, shall not be infringed, can be controlled or denied ownership, for example fragmentation grenades.  

Do you not agree that these and other lethal weapons are controlled?  And, they (the ones' noted in my post, which you didn't fully post) are controlled and potentially illegal to own, possess or have in their custody and control?

The fact is, Arms are and should be controlled.

Now, I'm not and never have stated that all firearms be confiscated by the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Of course not, that is not my point.  Arms include firearms, as well as every weapon of war...


Generically, yes.
As the term is used in the 2nd amendment, no.


Rye Catcher said:


> Do you not agree that [fragmentation grenades] and other lethal weapons are controlled?


They are. 
Given the above - so what?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 29, 2021)

Stann said:


> The leadership of a new America, which arose out of rebellion itself, or fearful of being called traitors and executed. That is one reason they did not establish a federal army, besides the fact they didn't have the money to fund it. If you read the second amendment in its entirety. The right for citizens to bear arms was given to the states so they could form their own well-regulated militias. It was their opinion but the states were so divided that they would never combined forces and attack the federal government. If not for that fact, the second amendment would not exist at all.


*The Constitution Is a Sacred Cow That Established Elitist Tyranny*

The Scrooge Founding Fodder was only concerned about keeping as much of the money they had stolen from the American true Founding Fathers as they could get away with by limiting government expenses to the point of threatening the nation's survival.  With the Second Amendment, they could leave us weakly defended by relying on the citizens to train themselves through hunting and pay for their own weapons.


----------



## Peace (Jul 29, 2021)

hjmick said:


> This newbie is a fucking hoot!


No he is not…


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 29, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Generically, yes.
> As the term is used in the 2nd amendment, no.
> 
> They are.
> Given the above - so what?


So, given above puts firearms into the Arms.  And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will).  It's logic:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

aka:  _Modus Ponens_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> So, given above puts firearms into the Arms.  And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will).  It's logic:


Incorrect.   False equivalence.

The part of my post you failed to quote demonstrates the flaw in your argument.
"Arms", as the term is used in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.

Thus, it does NOT follows that because grenades - "arms", as the term is used in the dictionary - can be "controlled", then so too can firearms  - "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 29, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Incorrect.   False equivalence.
> 
> The part of my post you failed to quote demonstrates the flaw in your argument.
> "Arms", as the term is used in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment.
> ...


Posting part of a quote is dishonest!  And a rule violation.

My post was this, for the reader:

_"So, given above puts firearms into the Arms. And the Arms can be controlled (infringed upon, if you will). It's logic:

"If A then B
A
Therefore B"_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Posting part of a quote is dishonest!  And a rule violation.


Only if done to change the meaning of your post -- but hey, feel free to report me.


Rye Catcher said:


> _So, given above puts firearms into the Arms..._


It does not matter how many times you state your false equivalency, it remains a false equivalency.
I'll make this easier to understand:
Grenades can be "controlled" w/o running afoul of the 2nd because they are not "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.
That grenades can be controlled in no way means firearms can be similarly controlled w/o running afoul of the 2nd.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 29, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only if done to change the meaning of your post -- but hey, feel free to report me.
> 
> It does not matter how many times you state your false equivalency, it remains a false equivalency.
> I'll make this easier to understand:
> ...



In general, an equivalence is “false” when:* The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison*: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.

Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war

Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend.  Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war


All I can do is demonstrate how you are wrong, I cannot make you believe it, should you choose not to.
Why do you choose to be wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In general, an equivalence is “false” when:* The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison*: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.


In this case, your false equivalence is your dishonest attempt to take the dictionary definition of 'arms" and equate it to the legal definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment, knowing full well the dissimilar definitions negate your argument.
That is, to make a point here, you have to lie.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 29, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> All I can do is demonstrate how you are wrong, I cannot make you believe it, should you choose not to.
> Why do you choose to be wrong?


Well, prove me wrong.  Provide evidence that guns are not used to kill, or to defend a person, their property or their country?  









						Thesaurus results for ARMS
					

Arms: a portable weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder. Synonyms: firearms, guns, heat… Find the right word.




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




a portable weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder

soldiers grabbing their _arms_ and helmets and heading into battle
Synonyms for _arms_

firearms, 
guns, 
heat 
[slang], 
pieces, 
small arms
Words Related to _arms_

derringers, 
forty-fives 
(or .45s), 
gats 
[slang], 
handguns, 
pistols, 
revolvers, 
rods 
[slang], 
roscoes 
[slang], 
sidearms, 
six-guns, 
six-shooters, 
zip guns
self-loaders, 
semiautomatics
blunderbusses, 
breechloaders, 
culverins, 
fieldpieces, 
firelocks, 
flintlocks, 
harquebuses 
(or arquebuses), 
matchlocks, 
muskets, 
rifles, 
shotguns, 
smoothbores, 
twenty-twos 
(or .22s)
AK-47s, 
assault rifles, 
assault weapons, 
automatics, 
carbines, 
machine guns, 
machine pistols, 
repeaters, 
submachine guns, 
tommy guns
spearguns


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Well, prove me wrong.


I did.
You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence:  "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I did.
> You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence:  "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
> You choose to be wrong.


LOL Your sure are stubborn and not very well educated or bright.  Keep on believing this fantasy  "shall not be infringed" and that you personally can define Arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> LOL Your sure are stubborn and not very well educated or bright.


I accept your surrender.
Only  you can keep you from choosing to be wrong.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I accept your surrender.
> Only  you can keep you from choosing to be wrong.


The white flag is not shown to you; in fact you've admitted defeat using this insipid post lack of credibility and lack of originality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> The white flag is not shown to you;


It was, indeed.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I did.
> You are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence:  "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
> You choose to be wrong.


In re my time  here as Wry Catcher, and in response to your signature line, which changes the tune as do most liars and creeps, like you.   I will post the exact quote from my post  88 in May of 1916:

*"Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic. But if being foolish make you happy, I very much support your right to enjoy being a fool. Have a nice day."

To this day M14 shooter has remained the same dishonest creep and obsessed supporter of guns, notwithstanding the number of deaths by gun in the last five years +.*


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In general, an equivalence is “false” when:* The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison*: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.
> 
> Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war
> 
> Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend.  Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.




Wrong....the grenade is a weapon of area effect, a gun is not...when a grenade explodes it covers a large area, a gun does not.......the 2nd Amendment covers arms .....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),* the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------

Grenades would fit the Dangerous and unusual exclusion, while rifles and pistols do not....

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

You have no rational argument for what you want... 

More on "Dangerous and Unusual," and why it doesn't apply to rifles or pistols...*



> Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf




Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. 



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). 



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 



*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. *


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In general, an equivalence is “false” when:* The argument exaggerates how similar two things are for the purposes of drawing a comparison*: The two things being compared might not actually have as much in common as the arguer asserts.
> 
> Thus, a gun and a grenade are both weapons, both used to kill and both are implements used in war
> 
> Using a hammer or a car are not weapons and thus are not made to kill or to defend.  Guns are Arms no matter how you want to define them.




And in particular...the AR-15 rifle..........

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...
*
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “_f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.__

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III_


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In Heller, Scalia weakened the "shall not be infringed" dependent clause.
> 
> "*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 would be would be nice if 

1) You stopped lying about this topic....

2) You were familiar with the information you were lying about....

Heller...Scalia went through the language of the 2nd Amendment in great detail.....and you ignore it, and lie about it....

*The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.
-----
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
-----
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. 


See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop,
------

1. Operative Clause.

 a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). 

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
-----

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):*


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

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

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> In re my time  here as Wry Catcher,...


None of this changes the fact you are fully aware of the fact you argue a false equivalence:  "arms" in the dictionary does not have the same meaning as "arms" as used in the 2A; that the former can be regulated in no way demonstrates that so too can the latter.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> *To this day M14 shooter has remained the same dishonest creep and obsessed supporter of guns*


Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 31, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Personal attacks are the sustenance of fools, and the substance of your attack is nothing more than bias and illogic.


Bye-bye.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 31, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Bye-bye.


Your surrender, accepted.


----------

