Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia."A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia."A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
Says you. The intent and purpose is in every word of the Constitution. You can't cherry pick the parts that fit your agenda and ignore the parts that don't.The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia."A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Back then they meant the same thing. Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition. Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned. Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
Dear sakinagoThe Idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias is nonsensical, as well as intellectually dishonest. It shows an extreme ignorance to the philosophy that lead to the bill of rights, an ignorance to the historical context, and a purposeful ignorance to the text itself.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).
First and foremost, the text of the 2nd. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It really doesn't need to be any clearer than that. It clearly states PEOPLE, not states, not government, not governors, not militias, but people.
IF it were true that militias were to be controlled strictly by the states...then state legislature would be appointing the leaders of the militia, much like they appointed senators at the time, because the senate was there to represent the states. That was not the case, the people who made up the militias elected their own leaders. Could the governors call upon the militia it times of common defense, yes, but the duly elected militia leaders still had control over their militia. The individuality of the militias made them a pretty shitty tool to repel actual standing armies, they did not move in unison as a single unit, they did not have a top down structured hierarchy much like a standing army that can coordinate mass numbers of troops into a single much more effective attack or defense. To give governors and/or states total control of the militias goes totally against the philosophy at the time, which was a government in control of force is dangerous and short sighted. Sure its not the fed government, but that still gives states to power to not only ignore protest of their constituents, since "i control the militia, what are you going to do about it," but to also swoop in on selective counties and use those counties militias against them. NO, a well armed PEOPLE makes a respectable government. Giving governors total control over militias, also gave them standing armies, which the founders were deathly afraid of, and why they banned standing armies in times of peace, even though standing armies were much more effective at common defense. Do you really believe the founders were ok changing one standing army with another standing arm? NO, just a ridiculous notion.
The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Back then they meant the same thing. Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition. Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned. Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
Please go away. You present nothing of interest for me.
nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.Says you. The intent and purpose is in every word of the Constitution. You can't cherry pick the parts that fit your agenda and ignore the parts that don't.The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
I don't need to lie; unlike right wingers. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law and is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.So you think the words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry are humorous?it says so in our Second Amendment; it does not say, the unorganized militia is necessary.Go argue with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the unorganized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Why do you insist on lying all of the time? You have already been shown what the "well regulated" part meant. Repeatedly. Your constant spamming of this thread is becoming problematic. Either present something new or refrain from more SPAM.
You don't know what you are talking about.The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.
You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law.The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Back then they meant the same thing. Well regulated was a term that was used to describe a clock that was working properly, or a carpenter with his full complement of tools or a man with his musket in a fully operational condition. Remember back then flintlocks didn't work all that well so you had to maintain them well to ensure they functioned. Thus the term well regulated, meaning the lock of the gun was fully operational.
This has be presented many times, the fact that you choose to ignore the actual historical meaning just shows that, yet again, you are a prevaricator of the first order.
LOL. Whatever.You don't know what you are talking about.The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?
Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.
Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.
The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not in the second clause.
The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.
It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.
Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia"
It means well supplied. Smoothly operating.
Supply and regulation are not the same thing.
Not that I think you'd ever come out of your little safe space and wrongheaded beliefs, but frankly; you don't know what your talking about.That is not the point of our Second Amendment. The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.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).
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.
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?
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.
