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

[danielpalos]

so what. the second clause would be that important, if it were a Constitution, Unto Itself. But, alas, it is merely and Only, the Second, not the First, Article of Amendment.

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

 

[Pop23]

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.

 

[danielpalos]

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia; the federal doctrine provides Only solutions, not excuses.

 

[WinterBorn]

Alas, you are wrong again. In addition to the basic rules of the English language, every constitutional scholar worth his salt disagrees with you.

And a militia is not a standing army. They only muster when needed. Plus, the amendment specifically says "the people".

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Regulating is not the same as training. They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.

 

[WinterBorn]

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Won’t help. Even if it worked and we were given such arrest authority, you snowflakes would release the criminals back into the general population.

better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia; the federal doctrine provides Only solutions, not excuses.

Now you want them to work construction? Once again, they are, largely, unqualified. And will you pay the extra taxes to pay them?

 

[danielpalos]

that is your straw man story bro. my story is, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and their arguments Prove it, every time.

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Regulating is not the same as training. They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.

it is the same. Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.

 

[Flopper]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason. That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function. The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states. Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.

There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change. This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans. Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity. But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values. By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living. A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.

 

[hjmick]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

 

[danielpalos]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason. That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function. The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states. Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.

There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change. This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans. Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity. But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values. By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living. A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.

I agree to disagree. We could not do a better job, today.

 

[danielpalos]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[hjmick]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

 

[danielpalos]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.

 

[hjmick]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.

Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Definition of Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".

As for your claims about right wing arguments, it really does not present any debate points or facts. So it is a waste of space. But then, it does make up most of your argument.

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Regulating is not the same as training. They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.

it is the same. Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.

Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer. Not even close.

 

[WinterBorn]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.

An individual right is not always a natural right.

 

[danielpalos]

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.

Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

Muster the militia until crime goes down. It must be cheaper than our war on crime.

No. THey are completely unqualified.

Regulate them well, until there are no more excuses, only results.

Regulating is not the same as training. They can be regulated and they would still be completely unqualified.

it is the same. Wellness of regulation, requires discipline and training.

Regulation for a militia is most certainly NOT the same as the training to be a qualified law enforcement officer. Not even close.

Yes, it must. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[hjmick]

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Where did I say anything about "natural rights"?

that is where you would have to get Individual rights to do, what is claimed by the right wing.

Go peddle your bullshit to them, I'm talking about rights granted by our Constitution.

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

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

Again, where did I mention anything about natural rights?

You have a comprehension problem.

 

[danielpalos]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.