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

[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.

And you choose to define "militia" only as a standing militia, ignoring the citizen soldiers that fought in the war that created this nation.

 

[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.

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.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it isn't.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It was that way in places in Europe before our country was formed, and was that way in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the Minute Men are an example of a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

including the context of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

You keep losing your arguments, why are you still here?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It was that way in places in Europe before our country was formed, and was that way in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the Minute Men are an example of a militia.

militia, well regulated. They were not, unorganized whiners.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

including the context of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

You keep losing your arguments, why are you still here?

The context is what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

Considering that the constitution was written to protect the rights of an estimated 2.5 million people, of course they used plural. But the phrase "the right" is singular. That same dictionary will show that. So the right is singular, for every individual citizen in the population (the people).

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which subset of the whole people, may not be Infringed?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It was that way in places in Europe before our country was formed, and was that way in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the Minute Men are an example of a militia.

militia, well regulated. They were not, unorganized whiners.

Militia, at the time was citizens prepared to fight if needed. When they stepped up, they were organized.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

Considering that the constitution was written to protect the rights of an estimated 2.5 million people, of course they used plural. But the phrase "the right" is singular. That same dictionary will show that. So the right is singular, for every individual citizen in the population (the people).

socialism; militia, and the people. why not resort to dictionary definitions?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

What 'unorganized militia'?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.