Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

where does the right wing come up with this, propaganda?

The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and many other sources. Where does the right come up with every lie to take away people's rights?

Wags Wearing Wigs

Free people should establish their own rights; they should not be slaves to the anti-democratic elite of Eighteenth Century America. So this whole discussion begs the question by assuming that we get our rights from the Constitution just because the ruling class tells us we do.

Our rights are inalienable, they can neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, they are subject to restrictions by government.

The Constitution's case law instructs lawmakers as to what laws they may enact, and what laws they may not enact, which would be laws repugnant to the Constitution.

that is the whole point; our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Natural rights are recognized (in law), and secured (by law), in State Constitutions; and, available in our federal Constitution via Due Process, not our Second Article of Amendment, specifically.

 

[Pop23]

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

You'll have to talk to someone else about natural rights, I'm talking about the English language, something you seem to struggle with.

Clueless and Causeless? Most of the right wing, is.

 

[WinterBorn]

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

no, they are not. only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

 

[Flopper]

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun. Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.

 

[Flopper]

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia

 

[Pop23]

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun. Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.

BUT YOU HAD TO OWN A GUN! Nothing in my example would make the State responsible for the COST OF THE GUN!

 

[Pop23]

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

I guess we weren't born equal? I'll have to think about that, kind of changes everything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Nothing about that statute limits or prohibits the right to possess arms, nor is it intended to do so.

Every citizen as a duty under the above statue.

That's all it says and means. Nothing more.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

The 2nd Amendment, like the other 10 Amendments in the bill of rights, was included to ease the fears of the population by prohibiting the federal government from passing laws restricting the inalienable right.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Cite the federal statutes to which you are referring. I can't find anything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[danielpalos]

Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun. Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia

resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.

why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Flopper]

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

No, civil rights are legal rights. Some people may claim they are natural rights but that's a real stretch.

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist.

Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

no, they are not. only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

What is the difference, in your opinion?

 

[Flopper]

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun. Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia

resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.

why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Putting your quote in context,
"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor." If you read on it becomes quite clear that Mason's primary concern was the future of the militia, not the right to bear arms. Without the guarantee in the 2nd amendment, the size and composition of the militia of the future may be reduced. Mason was justifying the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". And that reason was the militia.

Today, we do not depend on militias for defense of the nation as in 1776. One might argue today that the right to bear arms is needed for self protection or to overthrow a government we no longer support but certainly not to defend the nation. The reason stated in the amendment for the guaranteeing the right bear arms simple no longer exists.

Rewriting the Second Amendment - Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D.

 

[WinterBorn]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Not according to Flopper in post #612.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights. But you say the US Constitution does not do that.

 

[WinterBorn]

The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.

The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.

Which, once again, simply begs the question as to why it does not read.......

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

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

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

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established."

These were not how the document written.

Certainly, these Men of such education would have seen that any of the above would have much better accomplish their intent. But for some reason, they didn't, PLUS

Included it in a position within the document that makes almost zero sense if it had been include as you say it is.

To be in a militia you had to own a gun and know how to use it. The state did not pay for guns or train people to shoot. So the amendment could not restrict the right to just those in the militia because that implies the state would have to provide the guns as well train people to use them which is exactly what these states were trying to avoid. They wanted the country defended by volunteers with little or no involvement of the government; that is no new taxes.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

To become a member of a militia at that time, you had to own a gun. Giving members the right to carry firearms does not solve the problem since potential members had to own a gun and be able to use it in order to become a member.

Huh?

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

How does this require the State provide the weapon? It actually works perfect with what you posted.

or this:

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

It still make no condition for a State purchase

or this:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hell, none of the options implies that the state would be responsible as you contend.

Why is the right wing allowed to continue with this spam? The whole and entire People are the Militia. Only the well regulated subset of the whole and entire militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union--when it really really matters.

Then it would have been written as such. It was not, and no one has been able to confront why, making a simple change, was not included.

The answer as to why is obvious, because that was not the intent.

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

No, the militia was not the people. As define in Websters 1828 Dictionary a militia is "the body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service."

Supporters of the militia were quick to claim that every able body man with a firearm should be a member of the militia. However claiming the militia is synonymous with the people is going way out into left field.
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Militia

resorting to a dictionary is, begging the question regarding our specific form of Government.

why should i believe Your, misapplied definition?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Ok, so you spent numerous pages demanding that the dictionary be used for the definition of "people" and extrapolated that it also meant "collective. But now the dictionary may be misapplied? Hmmmm Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

 

[Flopper]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights. I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. that is what it says. isn't it, obviously, self-evident?

The Militia = the People.

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

Simple, right?

The well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. There is nothing about natural rights, only civil rights.

So natural rights are not civil rights?

no, they are not. only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

What is the difference, in your opinion?

Civil rights are Expressed in our federal Constitution; natural rights are Recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights. I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.

Code law merely codifies civil rights.