Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?

[Picaro]

The Supreme Court has been assuming powers for itself it doesn't have; forget about it, it's a joke and the system of checks and balances broke down over a hundred years ago.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench. Only Congress may do that.

 

[PredFan]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

Not all beliefs are equal, or to be taken seriously as legitimate beliefs. Is some loon's belief in a 'right to marry my favorite puppy' to carry equal weight with anything else in national discourse and 'human rights'??? Seriously???

Dear Picaro
Marriage beliefs and "rituals" fall under free exercise of religion.
The limits are whether these impose harm that violates rights of others,
such as consent of children or welfare of animals, etc.

In the case of puppies, yes someone can have a ceremony to marry their puppy,
and there are cases of people leaving all their wealth to their pets. That is legal to write up such terms in the estate, and pay for an executor to carry out that will.

However, having "sex" with animals is against the law. That is violating a different law.

Similar to Catholic priests and Jehovah's Witness elders who have their own inhouse policies and private process for addressing infractions of religious rules, but CANNOT invoke that to justify failure to report abuse children which is a violation of criminal laws outside church authority, and requires reporting to govt authorities.

With the beliefs about gun laws and regulations, the liberals who believe in govt regulated state militias only are free to set up and follow this policy for themselves, but cannot impose their beliefs on people and states who believe and vote otherwise.

This is also similar to Catholic church policies, where some people believe you have to go through Catholic priests or churches to have valid marriages, but cannot impose this restriction on people of other beliefs. The same way Lutheran and Protestant churches broke free from Catholic authority and taught liberation for people to govern themselves directly by scripture (instead of depending on Catholic priests to act as the middle man); a similar "reformation" movement and political evolution has been progressing where people are learning to govern themselves independently of government, and no longer relying on judges and courts to interpret laws for them. The Liberals still use the judicial authority as their "Pope" to establish interpretation of laws, but for Constitutionalists, these interpretations have to reflect the consent of the people in order to be valid. This reminds me of the Reformation where people began invoking authority of law directly, and were able to rebuke the priests and Catholic church to hold them to account. With the Constitution, the people are supposed to invoke this authority to hold the govt to account; instead of the other way, where judges "dictate" law for the people which is backwards!

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench. Only Congress may do that.

Dear danielpalos
If you do not believe in natural laws and natural existing rights,
that is your choice of belief. But you cannot abuse govt to impose your
secular beliefs on other people who have equal right to respective beliefs,
the same as you do.

See my previous post above. You remind me of Catholics who believe that everything has to be done through the Catholic priests, the Catholic church and authorities in order to be valid. What about Muslims or Protestants, Buddhists or Hindus who don't believe in submitting to the Pope as their central authority.

However DP if we all AGREE on an interpretation, then YES the central govt can REFLECT a consensus of the people, and we can AGREE that is public policy for everyone. Where we DISAGREE on beliefs, such as right to life applying to unborn children, or right to health care requiring everyone to go through federal govt,
these disagreements in beliefs CANNOT be imposed through central govt or it violates the First Amendment free exercise of religion by establishing one!

You remind me of right to life people who just believe their argument is just plain TRUTH so there is no "belief or choice" involved. They believe their way should be the law for all.

You don't like it when rightwing take their political or religious beliefs and abuse govt to impose that on you; so in this case, your political beliefs cannot be imposed through govt on people of other beliefs either! This is just to be fair, to protect people of one belief from infringement by other groups and beliefs that might otherwise abuse govt to establish their beliefs or biases in conflict with yours.

When the shoe is on the other foot, are you willing to back off?
Are you willing to respect the equal beliefs of others as you want for yourself?

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench. Only Congress may do that.

Dear danielpalos
If you do not believe in natural laws and natural existing rights,
that is your choice of belief. But you cannot abuse govt to impose your
secular beliefs on other people who have equal right to respective beliefs,
the same as you do.

See my previous post above. You remind me of Catholics who believe that everything has to be done through the Catholic priests, the Catholic church and authorities in order to be valid. What about Muslims or Protestants, Buddhists or Hindus who don't believe in submitting to the Pope as their central authority.

However DP if we all AGREE on an interpretation, then YES the central govt can REFLECT a consensus of the people, and we can AGREE that is public policy for everyone. Where we DISAGREE on beliefs, such as right to life applying to unborn children, or right to health care requiring everyone to go through federal govt,
these disagreements in beliefs CANNOT be imposed through central govt or it violates the First Amendment free exercise of religion by establishing one!

You remind me of right to life people who just believe their argument is just plain TRUTH so there is no "belief or choice" involved. They believe their way should be the law for all.

You don't like it when rightwing take their political or religious beliefs and abuse govt to impose that on you; so in this case, your political beliefs cannot be imposed through govt on people of other beliefs either! This is just to be fair, to protect people of one belief from infringement by other groups and beliefs that might otherwise abuse govt to establish their beliefs or biases in conflict with yours.

When the shoe is on the other foot, are you willing to back off?
Are you willing to respect the equal beliefs of others as you want for yourself?

Normally, I wouldn't waste too much time on this; but, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

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

 

[TNHarley]

There are many examples of intent.
Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.

 

[danielpalos]

There are many examples of intent.
Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or Constitutional law.

The Intent and Purpose, is in the First clause not the Second clause.

 

[PredFan]

You need read no further then it was a Salon article.

 

[PredFan]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Hey moron, that's been debunked many times, even by high courts. Educate yourself then get back to us.

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

Hey! I said "educate yourself then get back to us". Are you illiterate too?

 

[PredFan]

There are many examples of intent.
Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.

Daniel is both.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

There are many examples of intent.
Only dishonest or ignorant people argue this malarkey.

Daniel is both.

the right wing; masters of Projection.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading. The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control

Okay here we go again. More arguments over the belief of whether the 2nd Amendment applies to state militias only, as this Salon article attributes to Madison as the original intent.

My question to liberal believers in state militias only:

If it is okay for Judges and Courts to "create" an interpretation of law as a "new right"
such as interpreting the "right to marriage" without passing or changing written laws,
why is it wrong for courts to establishing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as
applying to individual rights?

Only if Courts establish an interpretation or precedent that liberals agree with
then it's okay? but not if the ruling or right conflicts with political beliefs?

True, the First Amendment free exercise of religion was originally meant
as addressing "religious beliefs." But if we are going to be fair and inclusive of
all people of all beliefs, shouldn't we apply this principle to other secular
and political beliefs? clearly NEITHER side or party believes in govt abused to
impose on THEIR political beliefs. We want laws enforced when it comes to
protecting our OWN political beliefs from infringement. When are we going to
get wise and realize that in order to achieve this protection , it has to apply to
people on Both sides that both have political beliefs deserving of protection!

BTW as for the 2nd Amendment argument in the Salon link above,
1. Had "state militias" been the only interpretation of right to bear arms,
I doubt the State of Texas would have ever agreed to join the Union.
Coming from a history of individual citizens and groups fighting wars for
independence as a nation, Texas would not agree to surrender to federal or
state militia control of arms. There would be respect for the Republic, but if
you read the language in the Texas Bill of Rights, section 2, it states very
clearly that the authority of law resides with the people (within a republican
form of govt):

2. As ChrisL pointed out, ALL people are considered part of the "militia"
similar to how all people ARE the government. The ultimate check is going
to come from the people. And if we have differing beliefs about the laws,
again, it is up to use to recognize and respect these different beliefs under law.

3. I also pointed out that 2nd Amendment advocates believe in the Constitution
as limited powers of federal govt, reserving rights of states and people, and
use of arms for DEFENDING the laws not violating them.
This common belief in Constitutional principles IS the basis of being "well regulated"
by people and groups "checking themselves and others" by Constitutional laws.

If you want to take this further and REQUIRE Constitutional oaths of all people
who bear arms, then let's require this same oath for ALL citizens since we are
ALL responsible for government when we become of legal age as consenting adults
with right privileges and responsibilities as citizens and taxpayers.

I have no problem with that, as long as people AGREE locally by district
by city or state, on the terms of establishing and enforcing Constitutional
laws, ethics, and process for redressing grievances to protect equal rights of all persons
who consent to be under that policy and process.

By educating, training, and requiring all citizens to uphold the same laws
expected of govt and law enforcement, we can not only redress grievances and infractions/abuses,
but can better "screen out" problems in advance (where people are either legally or medically incompetent to comply with laws and require accommodations to protect their rights if they require a legal guardian who can uphold responsibility legally and financially, or identify areas of "conflicting beliefs" where neither side should be infringed upon by govt).

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

 

[LOki]

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

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

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[LOki]

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is an independent clause; it contains a subject and verb, and expresses a complete thought.

Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". is a dependent (or subordinate) clause; meaning that while it contains a subject and a verb, it does not express a complete thought, it is not a sentence, and it can't stand alone--it's meaning is dependent upon the main clause.

The main and operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is what the amendment is all about: it is only about the right, which belongs affirmatively to the people; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

just right wing special pleading.

No special pleading was submitted.

Little guys like you should look up big words before you use them.

The People are the Militia;...

Point not in contention. You are most certainly right... however, the militia is not necessarily the people.

The people who, BTW, who are unambiguously in possession of the right; the right is unambiguously to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.

... you are either well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You are either, well regulated or you are not.

Indeed. And in the parlance of the day--in accordance with the meaning of the term "regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment--no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people... otherwise the state could disarm the militia. Hence, the guarantee that the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not Be Infringed.

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

I'm just going to point out that this is just an obvious denial of reality.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Of course. Consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Bill of rights, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government to disarm, or otherwise prevent the people from keeping and bearing arms.