CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[WinterBorn]

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

No it does not. It requires that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so that if the militia is needed it can be organized quickly.

In other words, the State can simply employ, rule of State law for any Persons that may be required for the security of a free State or the Union.

Not even close to what it says.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolute nonsense.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances a collective right?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures a collective right?



The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

You have to read the text of each article of amendment. Both People and Militia are plural and collective. Look it up in any dictionary, just like socialism.

I posted the text of each amendment. Why is the use of "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment a collective right, and the use of "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment an individual right? The exact same phrase.

Also, as I said, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right. Unless they change that ruling in another case, your arguments are moot.

means nothing. simply judicial activism. all i need is a dictionary.

Not at all. And besides, who would be the better constitutional scholar? You or a SCOTUS justice?

And the use of the plural simply signifies that all persons are included.

like i said; i am not the one appealing to ignorance of the actual meaning of words.

look it up in any dictionary.


just like, socialism.

Not at all. If they had used the singular form, you would be arguing that only one person had rights under the 2nd amendment.

But if you insist that the 1st and 4th amendments only apply to groups, that works (as far as your opinion goes).

 

[WinterBorn]

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

Wrong. And there is simple proof of that. If state constitutions are in conflict with the US Constitution, which wins?

 

[WinterBorn]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

Nonsense. The idea of an organized militia was only for when it was needed. Until then, citizens were encouraged to keep and bear arms, so when the militia was needed they could stand.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

your opinion.

I gave you a site earlier countering your that, with quotes from future Presidents, Statesmen, etc.

you seem to b e having a lot of trouble with the phrase "the right of the People".

Even back then, it meant ALL the people.

Women, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and the infirm were included.

Not my opinion; it is the common law for the common defense. Why do you believe the statutory militias are the only militias?

 

[danielpalos]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

Wrong. And there is simple proof of that. If state constitutions are in conflict with the US Constitution, which wins?

Depends on how many States feel Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

Nonsense. The idea of an organized militia was only for when it was needed. Until then, citizens were encouraged to keep and bear arms, so when the militia was needed they could stand.

so what. Well regulated militia must muster to Become, well regulated.

 

[Auld Phart]

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.

The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia

 

[PredFan]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.

The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia

The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.

 

[danielpalos]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

 

[Auld Phart]

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.

The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia

The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.

"unorganized militia"

is that a cute way of saying the People?

the 'People' that were specifically given the Right to keep and bear arms?

The 'People' that include males under 16, over 45, women, and the infirm?

 

[Auld Phart]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

most of the 'fantasy' here is yours

 

[PredFan]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

Only in right wing fantasy.

No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.

this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.

Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

The intent is there, but it's in the second half of the sentence. The way you're trying to characterize it is simply poor reading comprehension, any way you cut it.

The first half of the sentence is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . " That bit doesn't bear any intent. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The following bit bears plenty of intent. ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that it doesn't specify that the right of the militia shall not be infringed. Only the right of the -people-.

Luckily for us, the SCOTUS also finds your opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be inaccurate.

 

[WinterBorn]

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

your opinion.

I gave you a site earlier countering your that, with quotes from future Presidents, Statesmen, etc.

you seem to b e having a lot of trouble with the phrase "the right of the People".

Even back then, it meant ALL the people.

Women, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and the infirm were included.

Not my opinion; it is the common law for the common defense. Why do you believe the statutory militias are the only militias?

I don't know that anyone said statutory militias were the only militia. Why do you insist a standing militia is the only militia?

 

[WinterBorn]

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"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."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.

the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.

No. The legislative intent and purpose is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The inclusion of the word militia is simply part of the reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

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

Wrong. And there is simple proof of that. If state constitutions are in conflict with the US Constitution, which wins?

Depends on how many States feel Infringed.

No it does not. If the state constitutions are in conflict with the US Constitution, they are ruled unconstitutional. Period.

If enough states feel infringed they can amend the constitution. But that does not show the state constitutions to be superior. It shows the US Constitution to be able to be changed by a sufficient majority.