Current interpretation of "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and why Heller Vs. was a b

[Freewill]

Yes, the Second Amendment is SIMPLE for the time it was written - but it's now a confusing antique.

Liberals Defense Tactic:

Deny everything

Admit nothing

Call it Right Wing Propaganda

What does it matter? (quote from Hillary Benghazi hearing)

Role eyes

smh

Call BS real quick

Fake it

Pretend not to hear it

Fake like you didn't understand


Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

Show a liberal hard evidence, liberals say its inadmissible, bring a liberal witnesses and the criminal's testimony confession, liberals say it was false witnesses and a forced confession, the jury finds the criminal guilty on 12 charges, the libs say the criminal didn't commit one crime. Democrats love defending their politician criminals like Bill Clinton, Killer Mike, Hillary, ISIS, Ted Kennedy, Southern Democrat Ku Klux Klan harassing and hanging blacks in the South for voting Republican and still blacks harassed today by bigots for being an Uncle Tom for voting Republican. No wonder libs condone their criminal behavior, they're the Mafia!

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one is out to ban guns . But to say the 2nd doent allow for gun control is rediculous .

california banned a bunch of them

oddly the same type used in the latest terror attack

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't right wingers ever quote the whole amendment ? It's not that long .

All you see is the "infringed " line .


How about if I do this : what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

and the Left ignores that the right was given to the people, not the militia

Wrong.

“The left' does no such thing, this is another ridiculous lie from the right.

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

No, given the structure of the language of the 2nd, the conclusion is in reference to the premise.

The people have a right to a militia, a militia is necessarily armed, therefore the people cannot be denied the right to arm their militia.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What gun rights, exactly, do you people want that you are being denied?

 

[Iceweasel]

What gun rights, exactly, do you people want that you are being denied?

Further evidence that you're insane. The left wants the changes, not the right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why don't right wingers ever quote the whole amendment ? It's not that long .

All you see is the "infringed " line .


How about if I do this : what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

You do realize that the term well regulated does not imply government control don't you?
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives hear " well regulated" they instantly drop to their knees

 

[Wilbur Right]

Wrong.

“The left' does no such thing, this is another ridiculous lie from the right.

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

All a militia is is a group of people called to perform a military function by the government of the area that needs the service of their militia. That governmental authority has the right and the obligation to well regulate said militia.


Where do you get the shit you write?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

The people are the military too. Can you own a nuclear weapon legally?

The military is a government controlled entity
Militias were not government controlled
And don't be such a fucking idiot comparing a gun to a nuclear bomb

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

All a militia is is a group of people called to perform a military function by the government of the area that needs the service of their militia. That governmental authority has the right and the obligation to well regulate said militia.


Where do you get the shit you write?

A militia does not necessarily have to be called upon by the government you twit

The framers believed that the people should be free to form their own militias without government control

 

[NYcarbineer]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

 

[NYcarbineer]

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

The people are the military too. Can you own a nuclear weapon legally?

The military is a government controlled entity
Militias were not government controlled
And don't be such a fucking idiot comparing a gun to a nuclear bomb

So now there's no such thing as a state militia.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

You see what you're doing? You're just making stuff now, right or wrong, that the 2nd Amendment never says.

You don't want stuff read into the Constitution and yet when it suits you you're right there to do it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

The people are the military too. Can you own a nuclear weapon legally?

The military is a government controlled entity
Militias were not government controlled
And don't be such a fucking idiot comparing a gun to a nuclear bomb

So now there's no such thing as a state militia.

lol

Where does it say in the second that the state is the only entity allowed to form militia?

The founder were of the mindset that the people had the right and indeed the duty to form militias without government permission

 

[BluesLegend]

What is it the left hates about the 2nd amendment? I think its that the people don't need the damn governments permission that's what.

 

[Iceweasel]

What is it the left hates about the 2nd amendment? I think its that the people don't need the damn governments permission that's what.

They hate it because it stands in the way of total government control. The founders wrote quite a bit about it, their purpose isn't a mystery to anyone but leftists that don't care to do anything but misrepresent or lie for their cause.

An armed population is a population that can't be owned by government. We own them. We are citizens not subjects.

 

[Dale Smith]

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

You see what you're doing? You're just making stuff now, right or wrong, that the 2nd Amendment never says.

You don't want stuff read into the Constitution and yet when it suits you you're right there to do it.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

You see what you're doing? You're just making stuff now, right or wrong, that the 2nd Amendment never says.

You don't want stuff read into the Constitution and yet when it suits you you're right there to do it.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

You see what you're doing? You're just making stuff now, right or wrong, that the 2nd Amendment never says.

You don't want stuff read into the Constitution and yet when it suits you you're right there to do it.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Yes it does

The people's right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia having any rights.

Your argument is that the framers put the militia in the 2nd Amendment for no reason whatsoever.

IF the people feel the need to form a militia free from government control they have that right it has nothing to do with the people owning firearms

You see what you're doing? You're just making stuff now, right or wrong, that the 2nd Amendment never says.

You don't want stuff read into the Constitution and yet when it suits you you're right there to do it.

China has a "well armed militia"...how is that working out for the Chinese over there? When the military serves at the leisure of this corporate entity disguised as a governmental body, the last line of defense is a well armed public. I do not need "da gubermint's" permission to tell me how I may defend my family and loved ones as they feel that they can decide on a whim whether to withdraw that privilege. You see, I know the real truth about what this country actually is and it's nothing what you envision at all. It is a corporation that passes acts, statutes and codes owned by the banking oligarchs. We do not have rights, we have "privileges" granted by our USA.INC citizenship status when our birth certificates (written on bond paper) were basically stolen and a strawman ALL CAPS fiction was created...look at your driver's license, the copy of your birth certificate (you will never get the original copy because it is in a banking holding house). Look at any bill you get, any banking statement, any legal notice you get and you will see that your name is always in all caps, under Black's Law Dictionary, that represents a corporate entity. You, myself...and everyone else here is collateral on the debt due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 thus the invention of the birth certificate. I know a great deal and you should listen to me because the global elites that control both political parties are getting reading to lower the boom on all of us unless we wake up to this massive fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

Do you realize that only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas), were allowed to be in the militia?

Your reading would have prevented women, boys under the age of 16, and men over the age of 45 from owning and bearing arms.

You can remove the word militia, and it will still say the same thing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does NOT say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Putting militia in the 2nd Amendment creates context.

The Court deciding that 'the People' in the 2nd Amendment refers to all personal gun ownership is an INTERPRETATION based not on what the amendment says, but by what the Court assumes it's reasonable to conclude,
by implication.

Since that is what "the people" refers to in every other instance where it's used, why would that be "unreasonable?" It's not even an "assumption."

 

[Conservative65]

What is it the left hates about the 2nd amendment? I think its that the people don't need the damn governments permission that's what.

They hate it because it stands in the way of total government control. The founders wrote quite a bit about it, their purpose isn't a mystery to anyone but leftists that don't care to do anything but misrepresent or lie for their cause.

An armed population is a population that can't be owned by government. We own them. We are citizens not subjects.

People like NYcarbineer want to be owned by the government. They are more than willing to bend over and grab their ankles.