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

[danielpalos]

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.

And should there be a need for a regulated militia, the people will be mustered and regulated. Until then, the founding fathers wanted the population armed. Having mostly come from the UK, they knew the danger of a disarmed population. They knew that without the ability to offer armed resistance, a tyrant could take over all to easily.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary, not gun lovers of the unorganized militia.

You are continuing to think that a militia is ONLY an organized one, and must be a standing militia. That was not the case with the founding fathers. Do you not recall reading something about a guy named Paul Revere? Does the phrase "The british are coming!" ring any bells? Or perhaps "One of by see, two if by land"? This was partly a warning to colonists and also a call to arms for patriots. These armed citizens then formed militias.

This was the context the founding fathers had just lived when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To try and pretend the only people allowed arms were part of a formal standing militia requires you ignore history and the writings of the men who wrote the 2nd amendment.

sorry, that is just plain, inaccurate. The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and Necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not until they are needed. That is how this country was founded. With citizen soldiers who formed militias when called.

No, dear; the people are the militia. You are either well regulated or you are considered unorganized. there are no other categories.

The armed citizens formed the militias which helped win the war. The citizen soldiers were men who could be mustered for the defense of the nation. They were not professional soldiers.

Means nothing; well regulated militia are declared necessary, not privateers.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. The highest court in the land has ruled that way, and most constitutional scholars agree.

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.

Have you served?

i am part of the unorganized militia.

So you keep and bear arms?

yes, but Only for my private self; and, may not Infringe well regulated militia when they are doing it for the State or the Union.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Keep repeating that to yourself, it may become truth.

And since you're sooooo knowledgeable on the subject, can you explain why Founders wanted to preserve the Militia, and how is possible to preserve it if people don't have right to keep and bear arms?

 

[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.

Keep repeating that to yourself, it may become truth.

And since you're sooooo knowledgeable on the subject, can you explain why Founders wanted to preserve the Militia, and how is possible to preserve it if people don't have right to keep and bear arms?

it is current practice in our republic. nobody on the left has Any reason to take anyone on the right seriously about Constitutional law.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[Auld Phart]

"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?

Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.

Have you served?

i am part of the unorganized militia.

So you keep and bear arms?

yes, but Only for my private self; and, may not Infringe well regulated militia when they are doing it for the State or the Union.

Then, you admit you're a hypocrite?

 

[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.

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

 

[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.

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.

Have you served?

i am part of the unorganized militia.

So you keep and bear arms?

yes, but Only for my private self; and, may not Infringe well regulated militia when they are doing it for the State or the Union.

Then, you admit you're a hypocrite?

about what? i am willing to obey our Second Amendment, literally.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

You certainly have problems with reading.

it does not mention an 'unorganized' militia.

It does, however, mention the People.

and it gives THEM the right to keep and bear arms, not the 'organized' militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Remember when you said we have to look at the con
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.

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed; it does not specifically state the unorganized militia is Necessary, in any way whatsoever.

A militia (especially in the times the amendment was written) does not provide weapons for its members. They provide them. And the writings of the founding fathers show they favored the "Citizen Soldier". Which is someone with arms, who answers the call when they nation is threatened.

only in right wing fantasy.

No, not fantasy. Actual history. Which gives us the context and the legislative intent.

Only in extreme left-wing fantasy does "the right of the people" mean a collective right in one amendment, and an individual right in all others. Your logic is like that of the christian fundamentalists arguing against evolution. You are looking so hard for only the facts that support what you want to be true, you ignore all other facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And should there be a need for a regulated militia, the people will be mustered and regulated. Until then, the founding fathers wanted the population armed. Having mostly come from the UK, they knew the danger of a disarmed population. They knew that without the ability to offer armed resistance, a tyrant could take over all to easily.

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary, not gun lovers of the unorganized militia.

You are continuing to think that a militia is ONLY an organized one, and must be a standing militia. That was not the case with the founding fathers. Do you not recall reading something about a guy named Paul Revere? Does the phrase "The british are coming!" ring any bells? Or perhaps "One of by see, two if by land"? This was partly a warning to colonists and also a call to arms for patriots. These armed citizens then formed militias.

This was the context the founding fathers had just lived when they wrote the 2nd amendment. To try and pretend the only people allowed arms were part of a formal standing militia requires you ignore history and the writings of the men who wrote the 2nd amendment.

sorry, that is just plain, inaccurate. The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and Necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

That completely ignoring history. Especially the history of the times which thee founding fathers lived.

What you are willfully ignoring is that the militia is organized WHEN the need arises. Until then, they are citizens with the right to keep and bear arms. Read the writings of the men who wrote the 2nd amendment. Look at the structure of the militias of the time. Hell, look at the Minute Men. That is a classic example of the Citizen Soldier.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Not until they are needed. That is how this country was founded. With citizen soldiers who formed militias when called.

No, dear; the people are the militia. You are either well regulated or you are considered unorganized. there are no other categories.

The armed citizens formed the militias which helped win the war. The citizen soldiers were men who could be mustered for the defense of the nation. They were not professional soldiers.

Means nothing; well regulated militia are declared necessary, not privateers.

Privateers fought for profit. Citizen Soldiers mustered for militia when they were needed.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

You certainly have problems with reading.

it does not mention an 'unorganized' militia.

It does, however, mention the People.

and it gives THEM the right to keep and bear arms, not the 'organized' militia.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.

 

[WinterBorn]

Remember when you said we have to look at the con
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.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. The highest court in the land has ruled that way, and most constitutional scholars agree.

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed; it does not specifically state the unorganized militia is Necessary, in any way whatsoever.

A militia (especially in the times the amendment was written) does not provide weapons for its members. They provide them. And the writings of the founding fathers show they favored the "Citizen Soldier". Which is someone with arms, who answers the call when they nation is threatened.

only in right wing fantasy.

No, not fantasy. Actual history. Which gives us the context and the legislative intent.

Only in extreme left-wing fantasy does "the right of the people" mean a collective right in one amendment, and an individual right in all others. Your logic is like that of the christian fundamentalists arguing against evolution. You are looking so hard for only the facts that support what you want to be true, you ignore all other facts.

Context is King, even in our Republic.